header-logo header-logo

14 June 2018
Issue: 7797 / Categories: Legal News , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

CA reverts to first principles in negligence claim

A miner’s family was entitled to the compensation they would have received but for the alleged professional negligence of their lawyer, regardless of the accuracy of the initial medical assessment, the Court of Appeal (CA) has held.

Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey [2018] EWCA Civ 1299 arose from the claims handling scheme for former miners suffering from vibration white finger, under which tens of thousands of ex-miners were compensated.

The claimant had been medically assessed as having symptoms serious enough to be eligible for an additional services claim—under which extra compensation was given for loss of the ability to do basic DIY, gardening, car washing, decorating or similar chores. His lawyers advised that the existence of any co-morbid condition would exclude such a claim, so he did not proceed with it. He later claimed for loss resulting from that allegedly negligent legal advice.

However, the county court held the severity of the claimant’s symptoms had been overstated in the original assessment so the loss was nil. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, holding that the county court was wrong to revisit the original claim and should have focused on the value of what the claimant lost.

Writing for LexisNexis Legal Analysis, David Willink, barrister at Lamb Chambers, said the case was ‘a useful reminder of what is in issue in a professional negligence claim against solicitors whose alleged negligence is said to have caused a former client to lose or surrender a cause of action. In particular, it emphasises the need to focus on the value of what was lost through the alleged negligence, at the time of the alleged negligence’.

Issue: 7797 / Categories: Legal News , Professional negligence
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll