Background
Jacqueline Gomes advanced £1.1 million in unsecured loans to property developer Rae Jonathan Bowdery under facility agreements made in 2015 and 2016. The lending was later extended and consolidated, but Bowdery failed to repay. Although the claimants obtained judgment against him, enforcement proved unsuccessful.
The claimants then pursued AMG Financial Management Limited, its managing director Martin Grey, and AMG’s part-time in-house solicitor Marco Mandelli. They alleged that each owed duties of care concerning the loans. Mandelli applied to strike out the claim against him and for reverse summary judgment, while the claimants sought additional time to serve their Particulars of Claim.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court struck out the claim against Mandelli for disclosing no reasonable grounds and granted him summary judgment. On the claimants’ own case and evidence, their dealings were with AMG and Grey. Mandelli had no direct communications with the claimants, and merely performing legal work ultimately benefiting them did not amount to his personally assuming responsibility toward them.
The £3,000 paid to Mandelli for preparing loan documentation did not create a realistic prospect of establishing a personal retainer or duty. The court regarded the natural inference as being that the claimants discharged an obligation to AMG by paying Mandelli at Grey’s direction, thereby shortening the payment chain. Nor could disclosure about Mandelli’s internal arrangements with AMG supply the missing external dealings necessary to establish an assumption of responsibility.
The court rejected Mandelli’s alternative applications based on abuse of process and procedural noncompliance. The delays had occurred under consensual stays imposed for the legitimate purpose of pursuing Bowdery, while the failures concerning the pre-action protocol and the claim form did not justify the disproportionate sanction of striking out an otherwise viable claim. The claimants’ extension application was moot following summary disposal and would in any event have been refused. The judgment expressly did not prejudge the claims against AMG or Grey.
Key Takeaways
- An employed or in-house solicitor does not personally assume responsibility to an organisation’s client merely by performing work intended to benefit that client.
- A payment made directly to the individual solicitor, without direct instructions, communications, or a personal invoice, did not establish a retainer or duty of care on these facts.
- Procedural delay and noncompliance did not independently warrant strike-out, but the claim still failed because it had no realistic prospect of establishing that Mandelli owed the alleged duty.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the importance of identifying dealings that cross the line from work performed internally for an adviser or employer into a personal assumption of responsibility to the ultimate client. Internal instructions and payment mechanics cannot, without more, establish an individual professional’s personal duty.
It also distinguishes merits-based summary disposal from procedural sanctions: serious procedural shortcomings may justify costs or corrective orders without necessarily making strike-out proportionate.