Supreme Court to rule on damages in solicitors’ negligence claims

Supreme Court: Another miners’ compensation case

The Supreme Court is to decide when the prospects of success of a claim lost because of the negligence of a solicitor should be judged for the purposes of damages, it announced yesterday.

It has granted leave for Welsh law firm Hugh James to appeal a Court of Appeal decision that they should be judged as at the date when the claim was lost.

Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey (a firm) is the latest in a long line of negligence cases to come out of the government’s miners’ compensation scheme, the fallout from which has dogged the profession for more than a decade.

The decision is another involving a former miner who was awarded general damages but then, on negligent advice, in 2003 decided not to pursue a services claim, which would compensate for everyday tasks he could no longer carry out himself as a result of the injury, such as gardening, DIY and window cleaning.

The original claimant, Thomas Watkins, died in 2014. His daughter has continued the claim on behalf of his estate.

He issued the claim against Hugh James in 2010. Mr Watkins was examined by a joint medical expert in 2013 for the purpose of this claim; however, his suffering was categorised at a significantly lower level than that of 2000: under the scheme, he would only have been offered £1,790 for general damages (rather than the £9,478 he received), and a services claim would not have been possible.

At first instance, Mr Recorder Miller found that Hugh James’s negligent advice led to Mr Watkins abandoning his services claim. This was unchallenged on appeal.

But relying on the 2013 medical evidence, the recorder held that Mr Watkins’ chose in action had no value given the damages already paid to him and dismissed the claim.

However, the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned this. Lord Justice Irwin said the assessment was “of the value of the lost claim, not a trial of the original cause at the time of the negligence claim”.

He added: “What the claimant should recover in the professional negligence claim is not established by answering the question: how much of the original claim can he prove now? Rather it is established by answering the question: what was the value of what he lost then?”

The appeal court, which refused permission to appeal, remitted the case for rehearing.

The Supreme Court has granted permission to address the circumstances in which the principle of full compensation (i.e. restitutio in integrum) is engaged.

It will also ask to what extent a court should admit evidence which was obtained after the date of settlement of the original claim when determining whether a claimant has suffered loss.

Meanwhile, tomorrow the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Perry v Raleys Solicitors – another miners’ compensation case involving negligent advice over a services claim – on what needs to be proved when a solicitor is sued for failing to advise a client of a potential claim.

    Readers Comments

  • Bernie Brandon says:

    Long since retired but I am a legal news junkie!!!


    Bought an house with doubling leasehold was not informed by solicitor. When this came to light we instructed a solicitor to act for us in negulance. Now all they have done is handle the deed of variation to change to RPI and now are not continuing on a no win no fee basis and have advised us it’s not cost affective at £200 an hour to get his firm to continue with court proceedings. This is so unfair as we wanted to buy the lease at £5900 at time of purchase solicitor said no save your money you don’t have to worry about that now save your money buy your furnishings e.g. new suite beds wardrobes ect. We also spent £2K on extras from the housebuilder which he said could get some money knocked off but failed to do. Now to purchase would cost us more and he failed to go through don’t think he even bothered looking through deeds or he would or should of pointed out the doubling scandal. Question is we only have to May to issue court proceedings and the solicitors who were representing us have bottled it saying could cost in excess of 20K to go to court if we loose? How can we even loose NO ONE would accept these terms if they were made aware as your solicitor is abliged to do. So were do we go from here the solicitor who was representing us buying the house needs to be held accountable and the solicitor who as forced us to change to RPI weakening are case against the property developer should be accountable as we only did this because he said it would be easier to go after the solicitor instead of the builder or both.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


How can law firms adapt to post-pandemic working?

As law firms emerge from the pandemic, they face the challenges of coping with its aftermath while settling on new ways of working in the long-term.

The hot graphic design trends in the legal sector

As we recover from an unprecedented 19 months within our sector, marketing teams and clerks’ rooms are keener than ever to try out something new in the promotion of their businesses.

What challenges will the Bar face in the next five years?

As we look towards the end of 2021 and at how the Bar has adapted to the harsh realities of the pandemic, the question beckons as to what the future holds.

Loading animation