Loss of Chance: Lost or Disappointing Transactions and Lost Litigation
- Podcast Location:
- Download it here [file size: 30.8 MB]
- Categories:
-
Professional & Clinical Negligence
- CPD Points:
- Up to 1 point. details »
Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:
Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)
Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)
Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)
- Cost:
- a) £65+VAT for this CPDcast only
- b) £299+VAT for unlimited access to all of our podcasts. details »
- c) Discounts for multiple users - call +44 (0) 20 3377 3901 now to speak to our sales team
- Length:
- 30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz) - Plays on Computer:
- Yes Downloadable as MP3: Yes
- Contributor(s):
- Course Aims:
This podcast aims to examine loss of a chance in relation to lost or disappointing transactions and lost litigation
- Outcomes:
- After completing the course you will:
- Understand what is meant by lost transactions and lost litigation;
- Understand when one should look at past events and when one should look at future events;
- Appreciate how this differentiation was articulated by Lord Reid in Davis v Taylor;
- Understand how the case of Allied Maples v Simmons and Simmons the Court of Appeal had to decide the right approach where the solicitors had given negligent advice in connection with a transaction;
- Appreciate why the principles outlined in Maples are so key;
- Know how the principle have been applied in past case law;
- Understand what line of thinking was continued in Williams v Glyn Owen;
- Know what happened in the case of Levicon International Holidings;
- Understand what principles the Court of Appeal have laid down in relation to litigation lost;
- Know how causation and quantification of loss has been approached;
- Understand the siginificance of the case of Pearson v Sanders;
- Appreciate what the courts have decided in relation to causation in lost litigation where the lost chance is not to be determined on a balance of probabilities;
- Appreciate the effect in lost litigation claims of subsequent events.
- Level:
- Intermediate
- Classification:
-
Case Update
- Sources and References:
-
- Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602;
- Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563;
- Davies v Taylor [1974] AC 207;
- Hotson v East Berks HA [1987] AC 750;
- Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 AC 176;
- Stovold v Barlows [1996] PNLR 91, CA;
- Williams v Glyn Owen & Co [2004] PNLR 20;
- Levicom International Holdings v Linklaters [2009] EWHC 812;
- Bolitho v City & Hackney HA [1998] AC 232 (HL);
- Mount v Barker Austin [1998] PNLR 493;
- Sharif v Garett & Co [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 751;
- Harrsion v Bloom Camillin [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 89;
- Hanif v Middleweeks (a firm) [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 920;
- Pearson v Saunders Witherspoon [2000] PNLR 110;
- Philips v Whatley [2007] UKPC 28;
- Haithwaite v Thomas Snell & Passmore [2009] EWHC 647;
- Dixon v Clement Jones [2005] PNLR 6;
- Veitch v Avery [2008] PNLR 7;
- McFaddens v Platford [2009] EWHC 126;
- Hibbert Pownall & Newton v Whitehead [2008] PNLR 25.
In this CPDcast Guy Mansfield, a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row, discusses loss of chance. He address loss of chance in two particular contexts namely where, as a result of negligent advice, the outcome of a hoped for transaction has been less favourable than hoped for by the Claimant ("lost transaction") and where as a result of negligent advice actual or potential litigation has failed or been less favourable than it should have been ("lost litigation").
Podcast last reviewed: 2011-09-26
