Loss of Chance in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Vasiliou v Hajgeorgiou
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 December 2010

    In the classic loss of a chance case the most that the claimant can ever say is that what he (or she) has lost is the opportunity to achieve success (e.g.) in a competition ( Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786) or in litigation ( Kitchen v Royal Air Forces Association [1958] 1 WLR 563).

    But caution needs to be exercised in identifying the contingency which is said to represent the lost chance. The loss of a chance doctrine is primarily directed to issues of causation and needs to be distinguished from the evaluation of factors which go only to quantum.

    Where the quantification of loss depends upon an assessment of events which did not happen the judge is left to assess the chances of the alternative scenario he is presented with. It is simply the judge making a realistic and reasoned assessment of a variety of circumstances in order to determine what the level of loss has been. This process was described by Toulson LJ in Parabola Investments Ltd v Browallia Cal Ltd & Others [2010] EWCA Civ 486 in these terms:

  • Salford City Council v Torkington and Another
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 09 December 2004

    I do not say that, in assessing the likelihood of future loss on a 'loss of chance' basis in a case of this kind, it may not be (indeed it often will be) a proper approach to start with a broad multiplier/multiplicand calculation addressed to the course of events which the judge considers likely on the balance of probabilities.

  • Gregg v Scott
    • House of Lords
    • 27 January 2005

    In the first class of cases the claimant must prove on a balance of probability that he or the defendant would have acted so as to produce a favourable outcome. This apparently arbitrary distinction obviously rests on grounds of policy.

  • Normans Bay Ltd (formerly Illingworth Morris Ltd) v Coudert Brothers (A Firm)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 27 February 2004

    It seems to me that there should be such a principle, and that is what Lord Brown Wilkinson was recognising. It is quite difficult to say why it should be so, other than that it flows from public policy where it is a principle that a person should not be entitled to rely on their own wrong in order to secure a benefit. Damages would flow from the original act of negligence; why should Coudert be allowed to rely on a further act of negligence to reduce that damage?

  • Wellesley Partners Llp v Withers Llp
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 November 2015

    Stuart-Smith LJ went on to explain that in many cases the causation of the claimant's loss may depend on the hypothetical action of a third party, either in addition to the claimant himself or independently of him. Once the claimant has shown on the balance of probabilities that he has lost the relevant chance, the valuation of the chance is a question for the quantification or assessment of damages.

See all results
Legislation
  • Divorce Reform Act 1969
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1969
    ... ... loss of the chance of acquiring any benefit which the respondent ... might ... ...
  • Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1973
    ... ... dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring ... (3) As regards the exercise of the powers of the ... ...
  • Finance Act 1995
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1995
    ... ... investment, disposed of it on a disposal which was not a no gain/no loss disposal.(3) Where—(a) the claimant makes a disposal, which is not a no ... or adapted for the playing of any game (whether a game of chance, a game of skill or a game of chance and skill combined) ;(b) the game is ... ...
  • County Courts Act 1984
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1984
    ... ... (1) The claims to which this section applies are claims for damage, loss of life or personal injury arising—(a) out of a collision between ... for personal injuries in which there is proved or admitted to be a chance that at some definite or indefinite time in the future the injured person ... ...
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT