Judge says the conflict allegation could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings
The High Court has struck out a renewed Mishcon conflict claim, ruling that the case was an abuse of process, disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing it and was also out of time.
Mr Justice Cotter handed down judgment on 11 September 2026 in Martina Yvonne Shand v Mishcon De Reya LLP [2026] EWHC 2291 (KB), following a hearing on 31 July. The proceedings concerned allegations that Mishcon had failed to disclose an alleged “own interest” conflict while acting for Ms Shand between February 2013 and May 2016.
Ms Shand argued that Mishcon’s links with Tony Pidgley, then associated with the Berkeley Group and St James, created a conflict that affected the firm’s handling of her earlier litigation. She relied in particular on publicly available material concerning events co-hosted by Mishcon and the London Chamber of Commerce.
The judge rejected the argument that this provided a basis for a new claim. Ms Shand had already brought extensive proceedings against Mishcon in 2019, including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, deceit, conspiracy and conflict of interest. That claim was partly discontinued and the remainder settled.
Mr Justice Cotter applied the principle in Henderson v Henderson, which prevents parties from pursuing successive proceedings over matters that could and should have been raised in earlier litigation. He concluded that the alleged conflict could have been investigated and raised during the earlier proceedings because the material relied upon had been publicly available for years.
The court also found that the factual basis of the renewed claim was “fanciful”. It noted that neither Mr Pidgley nor the Berkeley Group Holdings/St James was a client of Mishcon at the relevant time and that Mishcon had carried out a conflict check when opening Ms Shand’s matter. The judge concluded that the alleged connection between Mishcon’s business development activities and the handling of Ms Shand’s case did not provide a realistic basis for the claimed conflict or its alleged causal effect.
The judge further held that the claim was statute-barred. The alleged failure to disclose the conflict occurred no later than May 2016, meaning the primary limitation period expired on 1 June 2022. Ms Shand issued the present proceedings on 26 September 2025. The court rejected the argument that the relevant facts had been concealed, noting that the material relied upon had been publicly available since 2014/15.
Mr Justice Cotter formally disallowed amendments already made without permission, dismissed Ms Shand’s application for further amendments and struck out the unamended claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and CPR 3.4(2)(b), as well as on limitation grounds. The claim was also declared totally without merit. Ms Shand was given 21 days to make written submissions on costs, including whether costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis.
The judgment also records that the court had no power to prevent Ms Shand from reporting the allegations to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; that was a matter for her to pursue separately.