Barrister M-isconduct? - Kevin Demirci Properties Limited v Huw Griffiths Architects Limited [2026] EWHC 353 (TCC)

Background

The Claimant (C), sought to bring a claim against an architecture firm (D) alleging that their professional negligence had delayed construction of a development. For this claim, C instructed “Barrister M” on a direct access basis to draft particulars of claim. C provided Barrister M with a spreadsheet, which estimated the losses C had suffered when compared with a potential joint venture agreement with a third party. Whilst that agreement had been discussed, the offer was withdrawn before C accepted it.

Barrister M drafted particulars of claim. These included, at Paragraph 13, a statement that C had accepted the offer of the joint venture agreement. Damages were sought on the basis of that acceptance.

Barrister M sent a draft of the particulars of claim to C’s Director for “approval”, but had already signed the statement of truth. The Director queried Paragraph 13, asking if they needed to clarify that the offer had been withdrawn. Barrister M did not respond to that query. The final version of the particulars did not amend Paragraph 13, and was submitted to court, signed by Barrister M.

D discovered that the fact in Paragraph 13 was false. They then applied to strike out the claim, and bring contempt proceedings against the Director. C, having obtained different legal representatives, applied to amend the particulars of claim to delete paragraph 13.

Barrister M

The court found that the inclusion of the false fact was the fault of Barrister M. The court had concerns about Barrister M’s conduct. Barrister M had not properly read the spreadsheet he was sent, nor inquired into the facts of that spreadsheet. Most importantly, Barrister M had failed to properly advise the Director of the importance of ensuring the accuracy of the particulars.

Signing a statement of truth on behalf of a client was a serious act. It required Barrister M to explain the importance of ensuring the facts were true, seeking confirmation from the client that those facts were true, and obtaining unequivocal instruction from the client to sign the document. It was not clear that Barrister M had taken any such steps. Rather, unfinished drafts had been signed without C’s instructions.

The court acknowledged that Barrister M had not been present to explain his conduct, and that there were no attendance notes available (C not holding copies of any such notes). Nonetheless, the court felt it necessary to refer the matter to the BSB to investigate and, if appropriate, sanction Barrister M.

Application to strike out 

The Defendants had applied to strike out the whole claim for litigation misconduct.

Whilst accepting that such a power existed, the court found that there was no ‘rule of thumb’ that certain dishonesty or misconduct should lead to a strike out. Strike out is a draconian power, and should only be used when just and proportionate.

Here, the court was not satisfied that it was proportionate to strike out the claim. Neither Barrister M, nor C, had intended to deceive, nor been reckless with the truth. Additionally, the claim was still at an early stage; the false fact could be corrected by amendment, and it would not have any continuing impact on the fairness or justice of proceedings.

The application to strike out was therefore dismissed.

Contempt proceedings

D also applied for permission to bring contempt proceedings against C’s Director for causing the statement of truth to be signed.

The Court noted it was well established that permission would only be granted if there was both a strong prima facie case of contempt, and a public interest in bringing the proceedings. Neither requirement was met.

The Director had been given already-signed particulars, and therefore may not have committed the act of contempt at all. Additionally, he had queried the relevant paragraph. When it was not changed, the Director may may well have relied on Barrister M’s expertise that it had been correctly drafted. In any event, the inclusion of the false allegation was primarily the fault of Barrister M, and so bringing proceedings against the Director would be disproportionate.

The application to bring contempt proceedings was also dismissed.

Conclusion

The particulars of claim were amended, and paragraph 13 was deleted. After dealing with other ancillary applications, the court invited directions for the claim to progress.

Gabriel Buttimore acted for the Claimant.

Case note written by Jack Sheard.

This case has also been featured in the Law Gazette and Legal Futures

2nd Mar 2026

Jack Sheard

Call Pupil

Gabriel Buttimore

Call 1993