Hogan Lovells partner left with hefty legal bill after firm loses boundary dispute
Share
Hogan Lovells litigation partner Graham Huntley has been left with a huge legal bill after he and his mother lost a two-and-a-half-year dispute with his mother’s neighbour.
Graham Huntley
Huntley and his mother Joy went to the Court of Appeal to overturn an earlier ruling handed down by His Honour Judge Winstanley in the Kingston-upon-Thames County Court on 4 March 2009.
The pair were in a spat with Mrs Huntley’s neighbour Simon Armes over a fence he wanted to erect on a previously shared driveway.
Hogan Lovells partner Helen Brannigan instructed New Square Chambers’ Stephen Smith QC to argue before the court that the fence would prevent Mrs Huntley, who suffers from arthritis, from being able to get in and out of her car.
Charles Russell associate David Marsden instructed Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC of Falcon Chambers to represent Armes.
Lord Justices Rix, Rimer and Patten rejected the claim, awarding 70 per cent of costs in favour of the defendant. It has been reported that this could stretch to £80,000, although one source suggested the figure had been “exaggerated”.
It is understood that the Huntleys also have a costs order against Mr Armes.
Hogan Lovells declined to comment.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (14)
Anonymous | 13-May-2010 3:00 pm
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/396.html
Paras 95 & 96 - oops!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-May-2010 3:49 pm
legal fail!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James | 13-May-2010 4:42 pm
This gives the legal profession a bad name and I am sure that the PR machine for Lovells will be in full force to reassure clients of the firms objectivity when dealing with cases ...
Fairly damming comments by the trial judge as someone already posted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-May-2010 9:44 pm
Ha Ha
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
PeterK | 14-May-2010 10:11 am
So, this guy quite rightly stood up for his mother, pushed the argument a bit too far, and lost. It's a pity for him, but "gives the legal profession a bad name"? Rubbish.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-May-2010 11:06 am
So Lovells and Charles Russell do litigation about neighbours' disputes? Funny, couldn't find that in the new Hogan Lovells practice group structure. Just let it go, Graham, let it go...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-May-2010 1:04 pm
hubris.
Lawyers are a bit prone to that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-May-2010 5:33 pm
Not much clarity of thinking here. The Lovells partner gave some evidence for his mother while the main witnesses were the mother and father who actually lived next to the neighbour and, by the looks of it, tried to recollect where now non-existent boundary markers were many long years ago. The article says that another partner handled the case with a QC. So obviously there's a difference between the partner handling the matter and the partner who was a witness, so comments about case management based on a peripheral witness are drivel. The real question is why the neighbour wants to stop an old lady parking her car where she, and others it seems, have been parking it for more years than anyone seems to care. All I see here is a nasty neighbour and some woolly thinking.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-May-2010 6:00 pm
Did the Judge not say the Lovells partner had lost all objective judgement? Para 95 of the judgement makes interesting reading too.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2010 11:51 am
No, can't see that. Your blogs are trying to imply criticism of a partner in relation to case management, and the Judge (and Court of Appeal) said nothing about that. There is no mention of the partner in the paragraph. It just relates to what the County Court said about the evidence of a group of family witnesses: the same County Court Judge who seems to have written a 100 page judgment without even referring to the conveyance - something clearly acknowledged to have been wrong. This looks like even woollier blog nonsense. There are better things to comment on.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment