Kounis v Critchlow and Associates Ltd [2026] EWHC 693 (KB)

Tom Bell, instructed by Sheona Wood and Michael Bijowski of DWF, has achieved success in his client’s appeal in the case of Kounis v Critchlow and Associates Limited.

The central issue was whether the claimant has standing to bring his claim (a professional negligence claim against solicitors, who deny all allegations against them). The defendant’s case was that the claimant had made an equitable assignment of his claim to a third party (an insurance company, Amtrust) pursuant to a settlement agreement in respect of the claimant’s liability for the costs of underlying proceedings. The claimant denied this, saying that the insurer’s solicitors had sent an email in May 2023 in which they agreed to postpone the date on which the assignment would take effect. However, the email in question only said that the insurer had “no objection in principle” to agreeing to an extension.

At first instance before Master Gidden, the defendant failed to strike out the claim, with the Master finding it was arguable that a concluded agreement had been reached. However, Mr Justice Cotter overturned that decision on appeal. He held that an agreement to do something “in principle” means just that – it suggests a consensus in outline but is subject to further details and does not constitute a concluded contract.

In a Respondent’s Notice, the claimant also argued that because the insurer had subsequently expressed in October 2023 that they had no interest in the claim, they were estopped from contending that they possessed the cause of action. Mr Justice Cotter rejected this argument as well, explaining that any such estoppel would be a “shield” rather than a “sword” and could not create new substantive rights for the claimant. Furthermore, it did not bind the defendant or remove the risk of “double jeopardy” (the potential for the defendant to face a second claim from the insurer).

This was an unusual case regarding the rules of standing. While the court may sometimes waive the requirement to join an assignor when an assignee brings a claim, the position is different when the claim is brought by the assignor. In that scenario, the requirement to join the assignee is a matter of substantive law due to the insufficiency of the assignor’s title.

Consequently, the court held that the claim must be stayed to allow the claimant a set period of time to apply to join the insurer as a party. Should the claimant fail to do so within that period, the claim will be struck out.

Learn more about Tom’s expertise.