Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5

KEY POINTS

• This case affirms Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons (a firm) [1995] 1 WLR 1602 in that: If the determination of whether the client would have experienced a more favorable outcome relies on the client's actions upon receiving competent advice, it is the claimant's responsibility to establish this likelihood with sufficient evidence.

• However, if the potential advantageous result hinges on the actions of others, it necessitates an assessment of the loss of chance.

• The client's act of undertaking an affirmative measure subsequent to receiving competent legal counsel constitutes a vital (albeit not automatically conclusive) component within the causation framework.

FACTS

• The respondent, Mr. Perry, is a retired miner suffering from Vibration White Finger (VWF). In 1999, the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) established a compensation scheme for miners with VWF.

• Mr. Perry hired the appellant law firm, Raleys, in October 1996 to pursue a VWF claim. His claim fell within the Scheme, which provided tariff-based compensation.

• In November 1999, Mr. Perry settled his claim for general damages (£11,600) but did not claim a Services Award within the specified time.

• In February 2009, Mr. Perry filed a professional negligence claim against Raleys, alleging that their failure to provide competent legal advice deprived him of the opportunity to claim a Services Award.

COMMENTARY

• Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 underscores the importance of considering both causation and loss of chance when assessing claims of professional negligence. It provides clarity on the burden of proof required to establish negligence and emphasizes the need to establish a direct link between the negligence and the loss suffered.

• The determination of whether a claimant would have behaved in a specific manner is to be made based on the preponderance of evidence, considering the available evidence, and it is reasonable to subject this evidence, including medical or oral evidence within the claimant's personal knowledge, to thorough scrutiny.

RELATED CASES

• Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons