I have heard of a client suing a solicitor for professional negligence before, but in this case at the EAT, the Appellant had tried to sue his solicitor on the ground that he was their employee because he did work by giving them instructions in relation to his case! For some strange reason the Tribunal found this to be misconceived and struck it out. The solicitors sought a costs order against their former client in respect of the costs they incurred defending his misconceived claim and won about £1,700 in costs.
On appeal, the EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision saying:
“But in his doctorate of philosophy programme he [the Appellant] appears to have passed no examination in logic. His simple proposition is this: he employs Ellisons [his solicitors] to act for him; he does some work on the case and provides instructions to them when asked; so he is their employee. I do not see any logic in that. The Judge was quite right to hold that the claim was misconceived.”