What initially appeared to be an entirely ordinary house sale back in 2018 developed over a number of years into a financial nightmare for the sellers. The couple—later our clients—had had drainage installed around the house some years prior to the sale, carried out by a contractor. In addition, they had themselves insulated the exterior basement walls, as the husband was a trained tradesman. A couple of years after the sale, they were contacted by the buyer’s lawyer, who alleged a number of defects in the property—among other things, that the drainage had been installed incorrectly. In a formal demand from the lawyer in April 2020, the couple were quoted as having stated that the drainage had been carried out by a contractor and that they would therefore seek to be indemnified by that contractor. The couple sought advice from a lawyer, who requested documentation from the buyers. It was not until the summer of 2021 that the matter progressed, when the buyers requested the taking of evidence in advance of trial.
During the taking of evidence in advance of trial, the contractor was not joined to the case.
After the taking of evidence in advance of trial in the form of an expert inspection and valuation, Sønderby Legal was contacted by the sellers in 2023 and asked to take over the case on their behalf.
They were ordered to pay just under DKK 163,000 in legal costs, as the court found it established that there were “defects in the house amounting to between DKK 590,000 and DKK 620,000.”
This was followed by a writ of summons against our clients, claiming payment of DKK 885,000.
We therefore joined the former lawyer, claiming that he should indemnify our clients for the part of the claim that could have been pursued against the contractor. The reason was that the absolute limitation period for the clients’ claim against the contractor expired in autumn 2021, and the former lawyer had failed to interrupt the limitation period by joining the contractor to the case. We therefore considered that the lawyer had incurred liability for failing to interrupt the limitation period vis-à-vis the contractor.
Needless to say, the case was of an exhausting nature, and over time the clients wished to find an amicable settlement. An agreement was reached whereby the clients undertook to pay for remediation of the defects relating to the drainage and the insulation of the exterior basement walls. In return, they chose to sue their former lawyer, claiming to have suffered a loss as a result of the lawyer’s culpable conduct and inadequate advice regarding holding the contractor liable. However, the lawyer was acquitted in the district court and the clients were ordered to pay legal costs. Despite having exhausted the maximum cover under their legal expenses insurance, they appealed the judgment, and in the High Court the outcome was in our clients’ favour. The High Court found it proven that throughout 2020 and 2021 the former lawyer had ample opportunity to advise the clients to bring a claim against the contractor, without the claim being time-barred.
In addition to DKK 175,000 in compensation to our clients, the former lawyer was also ordered to pay legal costs of just under DKK 90,000.
