header-logo header-logo

18 February 2019
Categories: Legal News , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Miner’s case not a ‘trial within a trial’

Solicitors have welcomed a Supreme Court decision on professional negligence and causation, in a case brought by a retired miner.

In Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 last week, Mr Perry lost his action against a now defunct law firm for failing to advise him that he was eligible for a services award from the National Coal Board as well as a general damages award for a workplace injury, Vibration White Finger.

The Justices unanimously held in favour of Raleys Solicitors, which went into administration in March 2016.

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that, although the firm failed to advise Mr Perry, a miner, of the potential award, the negligent advice did not cause him any loss as his injury was not debilitating enough for him to make an honest claim for a services award, which required him to show he could no longer carry out tasks such as washing windows. The Justices overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the trial judge had wrongly conducted ‘a trial with a trial’.

BLM’s Jason Nash, partner, and Richard Gould, associate, who acted for Raleys Solicitors (in administration), said: ‘Dishonest claims of course come in a variety of different guises.

‘For those seeking to fairly resist such claims it’s welcome that the Supreme Court has made the clearest of statements to discourage their prosecution.’

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