The client was the co-owner of a nightclub which had been destroyed by fire. The insurers had issued proceedings for a declaration of non-liability, on the ground (among others) that the fire had been started deliberately by Mr Hanif’s co-owner. Mr Hanif counterclaimed for an indemnity under the insurance policy, but his counterclaim was struck out for want of prosecution because of the negligence of the defendant solicitors.
The claimant sought damages for an opportunity lost by the negligence of the defendant. There were three putative defences to the action that the claimant had lost the chance of bringing.
Held: A mathematical approach is not always appropriate in lost opportunity claims. However, the Judge ought not to have disregarded the first two defences (which had high probabilities of failing) and taken only the percentage he assessed for the defence that was most likely to succeed.
In calculating a claimant’s lost chance of pursuing litigation against a third party, its task is not normally to determine definitively how that litigation would have been decided. Mance LJ said that there might be circumstances where it was overwhelmingly clear that the prospects of success were nil or 100%.
A submission that, in the light of the 25% finding, the fire probably had been deliberate, so that the claim should have been dismissed as being contrary to public policy was rejected, not least because it had been neither pleaded nor argued in the court below.
Judges:
Mance LJ, Roch LJ
Citations:
[2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 920
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Haithwaite v Thomson Snell and Passmore (A Firm) QBD 30-Mar-2009
The claimant sought damages from his former solicitors for admitted professional negligence. The court considered the loss suffered in the handling of his claim against a health authority. The solicitors received advice after issuing that the . .
Cited – Joyce v Bowman Law Ltd ChD 18-Feb-2010
The claimant asserted negligence by the defendant licensed conveyancers in not warning him of the effect of an option in the contract. He had been advised that it would allow him to choose to buy additional land, but it was in fact a put option. The . .
Cited – Perry v Raleys Solicitors SC 13-Feb-2019
Veracity of a witness is for the court hearing him
The claimant, a retired miner, had sued his former solicitors, alleging professional negligence in the settlement of his claim for Vibration White Finger damages under the government approved scheme for compensation for such injuries. At trial, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence, Damages
Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.326991