Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons

[1995] 4 All ER 907

Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 18:51 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons

D paid P, solicitors, to take over a company for them. After completion, D became aware of several claims that could be made against them as a result of the takeover agreement and sued D. CA allowed the claim, saying that causality was a question of fact, to be determined on the balance of probability and that once this fact was established, D was entitled to claim for damages in full. Where this question relates to a 3rd party and he can show that there was a substantial/real chance (NOT merely a speculative one) that a 3rd party would have conferred a benefit on him (or averted a detriment) he can claim for the value of the benefit foregone. The CA found (Millett LJ dissenting on purely factual grounds) that had it not been for D’s negligence, P would not be open to the aforementioned claims. Thus loss of a chance to be indemnified against losses could be compensated where the loss was dependent on the acts of a third party (ie whether the target company would have agreed to such indemnities). 

Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons crops up in following areas of law