UK: What's Going On With Lost Litigation Claims?

Last Updated: 29 August 2018
Article by Helen Evans

Helen Evans of 4 New Square examines the recent authorities looking at negligently conducted litigation, and asks if change is in store when the topic reaches the Supreme Court in late 2018.

"Lost litigation" claims arise in an eclectic range of different ways- from a divorcing spouse who has lost the chance to pursue a claim for a fair share of the matrimonial assets, to a company whose lawyers have failed to advise about all the types of claim that can be brought against a delinquent director, to a claimant who missed the limitation period governing a personal injury claim (to give but a few examples). When the disappointed client then pursues the negligent lawyers, the court has to grapple with what the likely outcome would have been if the original litigation had been properly pursued.

The court usually proceeds on an "Allied Maples" basis: i.e. it asks whether there was a real and substantial chance of the claimant achieving the outcome that he or she says he would have achieved if his case had been properly pursued by his lawyers. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that it is not appropriate to fight out "a trial within a trial", and that it is "the prospects and not the hypothetical decision in the lost trial that have to be investigated": see e.g. the comments of Rix LJ in Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors [2005] PNLR 6.

Despite the broad ground covered by "lost litigation" claims, the authorities governing them tend to be drawn from a surprisingly narrow field. Until recently the main principles were generated from cases where claims had been struck out for want of prosecution. Why does this matter? It is potentially significant that the key authorities derive from this pool, because in order for a claim to be struck out in the first place, a judge must have concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible. The starting point, therefore, for this type of "lost litigation" claim is that the case before the court was not capable of being adequately tried by anyone.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the courts have repeatedly emphasised that it is not the function of the court trying the professional negligence case to have a "trial within a trial". The point was made in Hanif v Middleweeks [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 920, (as well as Dixon v Clement Jones as cited above), and was repeated last year by the Court of Appeal in Perry v Raleys [2017] PNLR. 27.

Hanif was a case where a nightclub owner's counterclaim against his insurers arising out of a fire was struck out for want of prosecution. The first instance judge observed that "the evidence I have heard is somewhat scant and probably scantier than what would have been heard by a Judge trying the original action had such trial taken place". The judge- and the Court of Appeal- therefore perceived the court's role as "to assess whether there were any, and if so what, significant prospects under the original counterclaim" rather than to decide the issues on the counterclaim as an underlying court might have done. Dixon was another case where an action was struck out due to delay and could not be fairly tried, and the court followed Hanif.

By contrast, Perry v Raleys was an industrial injury case brought by a coal miner who was able to give evidence himself and also to call expert evidence in the "lost litigation" claim. Is it right that such a claim should be treated in the same way?

In Perry v Raleys, the Court of Appeal did not draw any distinction between the Hanif/Dixon style case (where a claim has been struck out for want of prosecution and was not capable of a fair trial) on the one hand, and the Perry style case (where there is considerable evidence available to the court trying the negligence action) on the other. Instead it applied what it perceived as the orthodox approach of only examining what the prospects were of the claimant succeeding. It observed that there "sound public policy reasons for such an approach", namely that it is "far too easy for negligent solicitors, or, perhaps more pertinently, their insurers, to raise huge obstacles to claimants such as Mr Perry from pursuing their claims, if the latter are required, effectively, to prove in the litigation against solicitors that they would have succeeded in making such a claim against the [original defendant]".

It may be the case that professionals sued by their client are apt to raise every issue that the original defendant would have dredged up in the underlying trial, but the Court of Appeal's observation only looks at the issue from the claimant's perspective. Defendant professionals sued in lost litigation cases often express surprise that a former client, who had less than 50% prospects of winning his or her original claim, now appears to have a stronger claim against his lawyers than he had against the original defendant (albeit that the negligence claim is worth less). Is that fair?

And there is a further challenge relating to the "no trial within a trial"/"you only assess the prospects" approach- what should a court do where a claimant exaggerates the value of the original litigation that he has lost the chance of pursuing? Take the example at the start of this article of a spouse who has lost the chance of pursuing a suitably sized claim in the context of a divorce. What if he or she says that she would have recovered a wholly unrealistic proportion of the matrimonial assets or that the assets were worth an inflated sum? Should the court proceed on the basis of a low prospect of the claimant recovering his or her exaggerated outcome? Or should it try to get to grips with the range of likely orders that the court would have made in the ancillary relief proceedings between the spouses? The first approach is arguably artificial; the latter approach arguably veers towards the "trial within a trial" territory.

There are pitfalls, including those identified above, in the current approach to lost litigation cases that are ripe for reconsideration. Perry v Raleys is proceeding to the Supreme Court in late 2018. It may be followed (if permission to appeal is granted) by Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey [2018] PNLR 30, another case arising from a mishandled industrial injury claim. Although the main focus of the Edwards case was on whether evidence that would not have been available at the original trial date in the "lost litigation" could be adduced at the trial of a professional negligence claim, there are strong conceptual overlaps with Perry. Both Perry and Edwards call into question what the function is of the court trying the negligence claim. In Edwards, the defendant solicitors argued (in reliance on cases like Harrison v Bloom Camillin [2001] PNLR 195) that when dealing with a professional negligence claim, if some or all of the issues of loss from the underlying proceedings can still be fairly tried, then they should be tried.

Harrison contains the observation that "in some loss of a chance cases the court may think it right to view the prospects on a fairly broad brush basis; in other cases it may be correct to look at the prospects in far greater detail". The tendency of the reported authorities has been to adopt the broad brush approach. Is it time for a rethink about the latter?

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions