Business

Six-figure negligence victory leaves retired builder trapped in divorce limbo

Published

3 months ago

February 6, 2026

Mr Barrett won over £130k from Milford Haven firm Price and Kelway in 2022 for negligence, but is still waiting to be paid due to ongoing divorce

A NOW-RETIRED Pembrokeshire builder who won a six-figure professional negligence case against his former solicitors says he has still not received any of the money — almost four years after the court ruled decisively in his favour.

Although the court-ordered sum was paid following the judgment, the funds are now held in a solicitor’s client account and cannot be released due to an ongoing divorce dispute over who is entitled to the money.

David Norman Barrett secured judgment in 2022 after a judge found that failures by the law firm Price & Kelway had caused him to lose the opportunity to pursue a potentially valuable claim against HSBC and HSBC Life.

The court ordered that damages, interest and costs totalling £130,820 be paid, and permission to appeal was refused.

However, despite that victory, Mr Barrett says he has yet to personally receive any payment.

***The court ruled that Price and Kelway Solicitor’s inaction caused a loss of chance for a builder to settle a legal dispute with his bank, HSBC.***

A clear win on paper

The negligence case arose from a failed property development at Ludchurch, near Narberth, where Mr Barrett borrowed money from HSBC in 2007 to purchase land and build two houses.

He later alleged that the bank departed from an agreed funding model, draining development funds prematurely and leaving the project financially unviable. He also claimed that associated life insurance policies were mis-sold.

After years of dispute with the bank — including an unresolved complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service — Mr Barrett instructed Price & Kelway.

He did this after hearing a radio advert for the solicitor’s firm on Radio Pembrokeshire. On November 7, 2012 Mr Barrett had a meeting with Mr Gareth Lewis, a partner in the firm.

“After that date and paying the a large amount in legal fees, progress was slow”, Mr Barrett said.

He added: “I gave Mr Lewis lots of paperwork, but work was not done in a timely fashion”

Proceedings against HSBC were eventually issued too late and struck out as time-barred, court documents show.

In 2022, the court found that the solicitors had failed to properly advise on limitation deadlines and that this negligence caused Mr Barrett a “loss of chance” to pursue or settle his claims.

Damages were assessed at £42,000, with statutory interest and costs bringing the total award to £130,820.

Money paid — but not released

Documents seen by The Herald show that following the conclusion of the case, a portion of the judgment money — £34,405.49 after fees and disbursements — was paid into the client account of Mr Barrett’s own solicitors, Red Kite Law LLP.

However, correspondence confirms that the funds have not been released due to an ongoing divorce between Mr Barrett and his wife, Dianne Carol Barrett, who was also named as a joint claimant in the negligence proceedings.

Red Kite Law has stated in writing that it cannot distribute the money without agreement from both parties, or a court order determining entitlement. The firm has also made clear that it cannot hold client money indefinitely and may ultimately be required to pay the funds back into court if the dispute remains unresolved.

‘This was business money’

Mr Barrett strongly disputes that the judgment award forms part of the matrimonial assets.

He told The Herald that the negligence case related entirely to his work as a self-employed builder and property developer, and that the damages awarded were compensation for business losses.

“This money didn’t arise from our marriage,” he said.

“It arose from my business. I was a sole trader. The claim was about my development project and professional advice I received as a builder.

“It wasn’t family savings or joint income. It was compensation for business losses.”

Mr Barrett says the stress and financial pressure of the prolonged litigation played a significant role in the breakdown of his marriage.

Years of financial strain

Earlier cost breakdowns from the case show that Mr Barrett personally paid more than £16,000 over several years to fund the negligence action, alongside significant unpaid disbursements incurred as the case progressed.

He says the litigation drained his finances long before judgment was handed down and left him struggling even after he technically “won”.

Now reliant on his pension and benefits, he says the continued freezing of the remaining funds has left him in financial limbo.

A legal deadlock

Where competing claims exist over money held in a solicitor’s client account, firms can find themselves acting as stakeholders.

Under professional rules, solicitors may retain funds until entitlement is resolved by agreement or court order, to avoid the risk of releasing money to the wrong party.

Red Kite Law has stated that it cannot advise either Mr Barrett or his wife on the dispute due to a conflict of interest, and has suggested options including a restricted joint account or transfer to a neutral third party — proposals which, to date, have not resolved the deadlock.

Personal cost

Beyond the legal arguments, Mr Barrett says the personal toll has been severe.

“The case broke us,” he said.

“And even after winning, I’m still fighting — this time just to get what the court already awarded.”

No allegation of wrongdoing

The Herald stresses that no finding of wrongdoing has been made against Red Kite Law LLP.

The firm has not been accused of acting unlawfully, and the dispute centres on how the judgment award should be classified and distributed in light of ongoing matrimonial proceedings.

The case raises wider questions about whether winning in court always delivers justice — and how long successful litigants can be left waiting for payment when personal and legal systems collide.

The Herald contacted Price and Kelway for comment at their main email address, but at the time of publication had received no response.

HSBC have also been contacted.

Business

Pembrokeshire Lydstep Beach Village development refused

Published

15 hours ago

May 7, 2026

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

A CALL for an extra sign advertising a Pembrokeshire holiday park, adding to exiting unauthorised ones, which planners say would create “visual clutter and intrusion” and a distraction to drivers, has been refused.

In an application to Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, permission was sought, through Lakeside Signs Limited, for an additional sign advertising Haven’s Lydstep Beach Village, near Tenby, the sign proposed for North Lodge where the holiday park joins the main road.

Pembrokeshire County Council’s highways authority raised no concerns regarding the specific location of the sign, but said “there remains a broader concern regarding the cumulative impact of signage along this section of highway,” adding: “The increasing proliferation of signs in this location has the potential to create a visually cluttered environment, which may distract drivers and, in turn, give rise to road safety implications.”

A Park officer report recommending refusal said: “Currently, there are eight flagpoles, one A-frame banner type sign, one pole mounted panel sign, and a further panel sign, located behind the stone wall on the western side of the park’s entrance. None of these advertisements have the benefit of advertisement consent.”

It added: “The increasing number of signs in this location has the potential to create a distraction to drivers, which may result in road safety implications. In addition, the proliferation of signage would create clutter that would result in visual intrusion in this countryside location affecting amenity. As such, the recommendation is to refuse.”

It went on to say: “Whilst it is not deemed that the proposed advertisement would result in harm being caused to the specific special qualities of this area, there are concerns that the display of this advertisement would, along with the remainder of the advertisements, which are unauthorised, result in a proliferation of advertisements, which in turn would cause visual clutter and intrusion.

“This is especially problematic in a countryside location where development is strictly controlled. Should the existing signage be consolidated and rationalised, the Authority may support the proposed sign, however, currently, any additional signage would not be deemed appropriate.”

The application was refused on the grounds that it would, along with the exiting signage, “result in visual clutter and intrusion which would detract from the visual amenity of this countryside location, and would result in potential distraction to drivers, which in turn would rise to road safety implications”.

Business

The Cheesecake Guy store could be coming to Saundersfoot

Published

19 hours ago

May 7, 2026

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

SAUNDERSFOOT’S Coal Building interpretation centre could soon host the third store for Welsh cheesecake business The Cheesecake Guy Ltd, in plans before the national park.

In an application to Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, Craig Taylor of Merthyr Tydfil-based The Cheesecake Guy Ltd seeks a change of use of part of Saundersfoot’s Cambrian Terrace Coal Building interpretation centre to create a small retail unit.

On its website, The Cheesecake Guy says of its business and products: “Established in 2019, The Cheesecake Guy is all about delivering indulgent, handcrafted cheesecake desserts with a twist. While we offer a range of sweet treats, our specialty — and customer favourite — is the signature cheesecake jar.

“Made with quality ingredients and packed with rich, creamy layers, our jars are the perfect dessert for any occasion. Whether you’re treating yourself or sharing with others, The Cheesecake Guy brings a spoonful of happiness to every bite.”

While no supporting statement has yet been published for the Saundersfoot proposal, the application says the scheme would employ two full-time members of staff, operating 10am-6pm Mon-Sat, and 10-5 on Sundays and bank holidays.

It says the proposed site is currently a mixed-use retail and gift shop, having previously been used as office space.

It adds: “This is a space within a building that is still trading, the space we are wanting a change of use was last used by Persimmon Homes as an office space.”

Of the scheme itself it says it will involve “retail sales of pre-prepared desserts and merchandise,” adding there will be “no on-site manufacturing or heavy processing,” with “equipment limited to display fridges and freezers”.

If approved, the Saundersfoot site would be the third outlet for The Cheesecake Guy, with sites in Merthyr, and, more recently, Newport Market.

After that store opened following redevelopment of Newport’s Victorian market, Craig Taylor, of The Cheesecake Guy, said: “We are very excited to be part of the new development in Newport Market alongside some other amazing small businesses.

“We feel this is definitely the next step in the right direction after our Merthyr Tydfil store taking off so well.”

For its Newport site, The Cheesecake Guy says: “We specialise in creating a wide variety of cheesecake desserts that cater to all tastes. Our menu features popular favourites that have won the hearts of many, alongside exciting new creations designed to keep your taste buds satisfied.

“Whether you’re a classic cheesecake lover or an adventurous foodie, we promise a cheesecake experience like no other. Each cheesecake is made with the utmost care, ensuring a rich, creamy texture and a burst of flavour in every slice (or jar!).”

The Saundersfoot proposal will be considered by park planners at a later date.

Business

Pembrokeshire Broad Haven holiday park works refused

Published

2 days ago

May 6, 2026

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

A DEVELOPMENT call for a Pembrokeshire holiday park has been turned down by Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.

In an application to park planners, Broad Haven Holiday Park, through agent Gerald Blain Associates, sought permission for the relocation of a boat storage area, vehicle shed and play area along with rewilding of adjoining fields at Broad Haven Holiday Park, Broad Haven, near Haverfordwest.

The application was supported by local community council The Havens.

However, an officer report recommended refusal.

Detailing the application, it said: “The proposal relates to the extension of an existing static caravan holiday site into adjacent undeveloped woodland to accommodate the relocation of boat storage, a vehicle shed, and a children’s play area, together with associated ecological mitigation measures. No increased pitch numbers are proposed.

“The development site has already undergone some site clearance, resulting in the removal of approximately 1,000 square metres of woodland.”

It went on to say: “The existing site is already intervisible with the coast, and the proposed relocation of boat storage would likely increase its visibility rather than reduce it. Without supporting evidence in the form of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) or Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) demonstrating that the development would be visually contained, the proposal appears contrary to the guidance contained within the SPG and the objectives of Policy 41.

“As a result, the proposed development is considered to detract from the special qualities of the National Park in this location and would be detrimental to the quality and character of the landscape character area in which the site sits, and as such does not comply [with policies].”

The application was refused on grounds including it being sited within previously undeveloped land within a flood zone, a lack of information on potential impacts on biodiversity, and it is “considered to detract from the special qualities of the national park in this location and would be detrimental to the quality and character of the landscape character area in which the site sits”.