Richard Whitehouse
Richard Whitehouse examines the Court of Appeal decision in Blower v GH Canfield LLP [2025] and highlights a key lesson for litigators: even strong arguments can fail if they are not properly pleaded. The case, arising from professional negligence pleadings, reinforces the importance of getting the fundamentals right from the outset.
The case centred on allegations of negligent settlement advice and an alleged conflict of interest where solicitors acted for multiple family members.
The original article can be found here: https://www.3pb.co.uk/content/uploads/Pleadings-and-conflicts-of-interest-by-Richard-Whitehouse.pdf
The background
The claimant argued that the defendant solicitors acted negligently by advising on settlement while also acting for her bankrupt husband and other family members.
At first instance, the claim failed. The court found:
- No negligence had been established
- The pleadings on causation were inadequate
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
Conflict of interest: what the Court of Appeal said
A central issue was whether the solicitors were acting under a conflict of interest.
The Court of Appeal emphasised that:
- The trial judge considered the conflict only as it had been pleaded at trial
- The pleaded case was narrower than the arguments advanced on appeal
- There was no error in how the judge approached the issue
Even if a conflict had existed, it would not have changed the outcome given the factual findings.
Causation: the real problem
The more decisive issue was causation.
The court highlighted that:
- The claimant had not properly pleaded how any alleged breach caused loss
- Arguments raised on appeal went beyond what had been set out in the pleadings
- The judge had not been asked to consider alternative approaches, such as a loss of chance claim
In short, the case failed because the causation case was not properly articulated at the outset.
Why this decision matters
This case is a reminder that:
- Litigation is won or lost on the pleadings
- Expanding arguments later in proceedings will rarely succeed
- Even arguable conflicts of interest will not assist a claimant without a properly pleaded case on causation
Key takeaways
- Pleadings must clearly set out both breach and causation
- Do not assume arguments can be developed later on appeal
- Conflicts of interest must be properly framed and evidenced
- Consider alternative causation arguments (including loss of chance) early
Conclusion
The decision reinforces a fundamental but often overlooked point: the strength of a claim depends not just on the facts, but on how those facts are pleaded. A poorly articulated case on causation can be fatal, regardless of the underlying merits.