Harrison v Bloom Camillin (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 1999 |
| Date | 28 October 1999 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Before Mr Justice Neuberger.
Damages - negligence of solicitor - loss of opportunity to pursue claim - appropriate method of valuing loss of chance
When assessing the value of a claim where a claimant had lost the opportunity to pursue an action because of the negligence of his solicitor, the court could take into account the possibility that, had the action been pursued, it would have settled.
Mr Justice Neuberger so held in the Chancery Division when awarding damages to the plaintiffs, Peter Michael Harrison and John Stewart Harrison, who had lost opportunity of pursing litigation because by the negligence of the defendants Bloom Camillin, a firm of solicitors at Holborn Circus, London.
Mr Adrian Salter for the plaintiffs; Miss Angharad Start for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE NEUBERGER said that the plaintiffs were suing solicitors for loss which they claimed to have suffered as a result of their failure to serve a writ on a firm of accountants within the relevant limitation period.
The writ was founded on the alleged negligence of the accountants when acting for and advising the plaintiffs in connection with the acquisition of shares.
The plaintiffs contended that as a result of the solicitors' breach of duty they lost the opportunity of suing their accountants and recovering damages from them.
His Lordship said that the claimants were claiming for "loss of chance".
The first question that arose, therefore, was what was the appropriate method of valuing the loss of opportunity?
In his Lordship's judgment, the first point to consider was whether the claimant would actually have pursued the action to the point where he would, subject to the court's assessment of the prospects, have recovered something.
It was for the claimant to satisfy the court that he would have pursued the action to that extent.
As to the second question, there was a dispute between the parties as to whether one could take account of the possibility of a settlement being reached in the action or whether one had to assume that the action, which the claimant had lost the opportunity to pursue, would have gone all the way to trial.
In his Lordship's judgment, there was no justification for accepting the latter view. It was artificial and unrealistic to impose an unnecessary constraint on the exercise which the court had to perform. After all, the great majority of professional negligence actions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Centenary 6 Limited Against Tlt Llp
...[2010] PNLR 22). The extent to which the court takes a broad brush approach depends on the circumstances (Harrison v Bloom Camillin [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 89). Ten percent was the threshold for a substantial prospect of success (Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability, para 11-280, McGrego......
-
Altus Group (UK) Ltd v Baker Tilly Tax and Advisory Services LLP and another
...have failed or succeeded on a point of law than to determine that the claimant would have failed or succeeded on a point of fact": Harrison v Bloom Camillin [2001] PNLR 195, per Neuberger J at 230. 59 Powerfully though these arguments were made, I do not accept them. In my judgment, the cor......
-
Tajik Aluminium Plant v Hydro Aluminium as
...the authorities on the former procedure. In so doing he was following an earlier decision of Neuberger J. in the unreported case of Harrison v Bloom Camillin. The judge held that one principle that could be derived from the earlier authorities was that a witness summons must specifically id......
-
Harrington Scott Ltd v Coupe Bradbury Solicitors Ltd
...Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472 Gilbert v Shanahan [1988] 3 NZLR 528 Harris v Bolt Burdon [2000] C.P. Rep. 70 Harrison v Bloom Camillin (No 2) [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 404 Holyoake v Candy [2017] EWHC 3397 (Ch) Lavarack v Woods of Colchester [1967] 1 QB 278 ( Logicrose Ltd ......