Veitch and Another v Avery: CA 12 Jul 2007

The claimants appealed the award of only nominal damages after they succeeded in their claim against their solicitors for negligence in their conduct of the defence of a mortgage possession action.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was correct to find that the claimants would not have received continuing support for the business. ‘There is no hard and fast rule in negligence cases that the measure of the loss is to always be identified by reference to, and quantified as at, the date of the breach of duty. It depends; it turns on the facts and the application to them of common-sense, an essentially evaluative role for the judge of first instance.’


[2007] EWCA Civ 711




England and Wales


CitedAllied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons CA 12-May-1995
Lost chance claim – not mere speculative claim
Solicitors failed to advise the plaintiffs sufficiently in a property transaction. A warranty against liability for a former tenant’s obligations under leases had not been obtained. The trial judge held that, on a balance of probabilities, there was . .
CitedGaloo Ltd and Others v Bright Grahame Murray CA 21-Dec-1993
It is for the Court to decide whether the breach of duty was the cause of a loss or simply the occasion for it by the application of common sense. A breach of contract, to found recovery, must be shown to have been ‘an ‘effective’ or ‘dominant’ . .
CitedClement v Dixon Jones CA 2005
In a professional negligence claim where the claimant alleges negligence in defending a mortgagee possession action, and the claim engages the loss of chance principle, the question is not as to the likely outcome of the possession claim had it been . .
CitedSmith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers HL 21-Nov-1996
The defendant had made misrepresentations, inducing the claimant to enter into share transactions which he would not otherwise have entered into, and which lost money.
Held: A deceitful wrongdoer is properly liable for all actual damage . .
CitedStandard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Others (No 3) ComC 27-May-1998
A company making a false statement on a bill of lading would be held liable for the tort of deceit when it knew that the bill must be relied upon by bankers and others making arrangements on its contents. A claimant ‘cannot recover for a loss . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Damages

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.254570