High Court Judge Jan Drysdale has ruled that attorney Andrew O. Kola cannot claim legal immunity in a professional negligence lawsuit brought by businessman Patrick “Paddy” Prendergast, rejecting arguments that his conduct was protected as part of his role as an advocate in court.
The decision, delivered on October 27, 2025, stems from a dispute in which Prendergast alleged that Kola’s failure to file a defence in a 2022 civil case caused a default judgment of $513,740 to be entered against him. The businessman, owner of a storage facility in Midway, St. John, is seeking $516,700 in damages for professional negligence and breach of contract.
According to court filings, Prendergast hired Kola after being sued by a former business associate, Ronald Mind, who accused him of failing to properly store certain items. Despite being retained promptly, Kola allegedly failed to file the defence on time and later mishandled an application to set aside the judgment. The application was eventually dismissed due to non-compliance with court orders, leaving the default judgment enforceable against Prendergast.
Kola admitted in writing that he failed in his duties to his client but argued that his actions were protected by long-standing principles of barrister’s immunity, rooted in English common law cases such asRondel v. WorsleyandSaif Ali v. Mitchell. He further claimed that since he had entered an appearance on behalf of Prendergast, he was “engaged as an advocate in court” under section 20(1)(c) of Antigua and Barbuda’sLegal Profession Actand therefore shielded from liability.
Prendergast’s legal team, led by King’s Counsel E. Ann Henry, countered that theLegal Profession Actlimits immunity strictly to acts performed by an attorney while actively engaged in advocacy before the court — not to preparatory or administrative work. They argued that Kola’s omissions occurred entirely at the pre-trial stage and fell outside the statute’s narrow protection.
In her 10-page ruling, Justice Drysdale agreed with the claimant’s interpretation. She found that filing an acknowledgment of service or preparing pleadings “is a purely procedural step” and does not constitute advocacy. The judge ruled that immunity cannot arise merely because an attorney is retained or has entered an appearance.
“The alleged negligence occurred clearly before any in-court advocacy commenced and is tied to the duties of a solicitor,” Justice Drysdale wrote. She emphasized that theLegal Profession Actpreserves a functional distinction between advocacy and preparatory work, meaning that only conduct directly connected with in-court proceedings attracts immunity.
The judge also cited Lord Diplock’s reasoning inSaif Ali v. Mitchell, noting that acts such as advising clients, settling pleadings, or filing defences are “manifestly” excluded from barrister’s immunity. To extend such protection, she said, would effectively shield attorneys from all pre-trial negligence, a result inconsistent with both statute and precedent.
Kola had also filed a counterclaim accusing Prendergast of defamation, alleging that the businessman made damaging statements about him on Facebook and to a client, calling him dishonest. Prendergast maintains that his statements were true and therefore not defamatory. That issue remains unresolved pending further hearings.
In concluding, Justice Drysdale declared that “the immunity conferred by section 20(1)(c) of theLegal Profession Actor at common law does not apply to these proceedings.” The matter was adjourned to November 13, 2025, for a further hearing and determination on costs.
The case —Patrick Prendergast v. Andrew O. Kola(ANUHCV2024/0018) — underscores the limits of professional immunity in Antigua and Barbuda’s fused legal system. It establishes that attorneys may be held liable for negligence arising from failures in pre-trial preparation and procedural compliance, even where those failures ultimately affect court outcomes.
