Solicitor in libel battle is facing £2.5m bill
A SOLICITOR who tried to outbid his clients in a property deal and then sued them for libel when they complained faces a bill for £2.5million after having his damages award taken away.
David Conway was awarded nearly £100,000 by a High Court jury against property developers who accused him of professional misconduct.
But yesterday the Court of Appeal backed the firm’s challenge to the libel award and ordered Mr Conway to pay back the damages plus legal costs. A judge described the original finding as a poor advertisement for the jury system.
The court heard that Mr Conway was asked by Regent House Properties to act for them in the purchase of a £3.75million development in St John’s Wood, NorthWest London, five years ago.
The company told him that the offer for the property had been accepted by the vendor, Eyre Estate.
Mr Conway then called Eyre’s chief executive and offered to up the bid to £4million. But Eyre stuck with the
any wrong- doing and insisted he offer from Regent.
had been the victim of a malicious
Regent director Nicolae Ratiu
‘ dirty trick’ designed to blacken his wrote a letter to the chartered surveyors
name and stop his legitimate acting for Eyre Estate complaining
attempt to buy the development. about Mr Conway’s
In March, a High Court jury actions.
He claimed he had
found that the letter was defamatory breached the duty of ‘trust, loyalty and that Regent had written and confidence’ he owed them as
it out of malice. They awarded Mr a solicitor and accused him of
Conway £96,000 in damages. unprofessional conduct and misusing
Regent appealed and won their confidential information.
case yesterday in front of three
Mr Conway, 60, who has been a
Appeal Court judges. lawyer for 30 years and whose firm
Lord Justice Sedley said: ‘ This David Conway & Co is well
was, in the end, a case in which a respected in the property field,
solicitor, who had set about competing sued his clients for libel. He denied with a client, could not legitimately complain if in the circumstances the client accused him of behaving unethically.’
Lord Justice Auld said the High Court finding in March was ‘ no advertisement for our system of jury trial in civil cases’.
He added: ‘ A Martian, on learning of it, would be amazed, as would the ordinary person in the street.’
The Appeal Court ruled that the trial judge had ‘ misdirected’ the jury on crucial issues in the case.
Afterwards, Mr Ratiu said: ‘ I’m delighted with the outcome of the appeal. I’m still bitter and angry that it’s taken five years and a fortune to defend myself and my company against our own solicitor, a solicitor who chose to compete against us on a property that we’d told him about and which he wanted for himself.’
Mr Conway was ordered to repay the £96,000 damages plus £350,000 in legal costs. He must also pay Regent’s costs of £ 2.1million. He was refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
Saying he was ‘surprised’ at the judgment, Mr Conway claimed his legal bill would be £1.6million.