High Court applies 1784 solicitor rule to an £11m claim

What happened

An £11m claim has fallen foul of a 242-year-old rule, the High Court has held, according to Legal Futures. The rule, which the court called the solicitor rule, dates back to the 1784 decision in Hall v Hallet. It says that a solicitor with conduct of litigation may not take an assignment of their client's cause of action.

The underlying claim arises from an £11m, 20-year loan made to John Rhoden by Maltby Services in April 2019. Mr Rhoden died in March 2023. In November 2024, Maltby assigned its rights under the deed of loan to TD Capital, which was represented by Worcestershire firm Hickman Construction Law. The firm's directors, who own it through companies, are solicitors Mr Hickman and Mr Page.

In December 2025, TD Capital assigned the claim to MSV Estates, whose directors were Mr Hickman and Mr Page. The evidence put before the court indicated that each held only about 11% of the company. MSV instructed a different law firm to commence the claim. The personal representatives of Mr Rhoden's estate sought summary judgment on the basis that the assignment was void.

The arguments and the ruling

MSV argued that the solicitor rule only applied once a claim was issued, and that a vehicle in which the solicitors held a minority interest was not the same as the solicitors themselves. Master Sullivan rejected both points.

She said that the assignment going to a corporate vehicle, rather than to Mr Hickman and Mr Page directly, did not avoid the rule. In her words: "The solicitor rule would be hollow if it could be so easily circumvented merely by the solicitors acting through a company. That is no less a forceful argument even if they are minority shareholders." She also found "a clear conflict of interest which the solicitor rule is in place to avoid" and no real prospect of arguing otherwise.

The matter is not finished. MSV had also applied to add TD Capital as a party, but the court did not have time to hear it. Master Sullivan said she would list a hearing at which the consequences of the judgment and that application are determined.

What it means for solicitors

The reported reasoning looks at substance rather than form. The corporate structure and a minority shareholding did not alter the outcome. The argument that the rule bites only once proceedings are issued also failed.

Nothing in the report suggests any wider change in the law. It records a single decision, with a further hearing to follow on its consequences.

Where Counsel AI fits

This story does not concern AI. The connection is narrow: Counsel AI's drafts and first reads cite the section of legislation they rely on, so the source can be identified and checked. Counsel AI is software, not a law firm.