One of the most frequently asked questions we receive is, ‘How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence?’

How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence? Find out by calling our national helpline for a free case assessment on 0333 888 0403 or email details to [email protected]

In most instances it is pretty straightforward to identify the amount of compensation that is likely to be recovered in a successful professional negligence claim. The calculation is primarily based on the financial loss that has flowed directly from the actions of the wrongdoer.

So, if for example a solicitor misses an important time limit and your case is struck out as a consequence, then you will claim compensation for the financial losses you have incurred as a direct result of the solicitor’s carelessness. This will usually be the value of the case that has been lost, together with any wasted legal costs.

But sometimes, the compensation people want to claim can give rise to more difficult legal issues. Under English law for instance, compensation cannot be claimed for loss that is deemed to be too ‘remote’ from the error or not ‘reasonably foreseeable’.

If you are left wondering, ‘How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence?’, then you are very welcome to call our free legal helpline. Our specialist professional negligence solicitors will be happy to give you guidance on the compensation that can be claimed in a particular scenario. While it is not always possible to identify a precise figure right at the outset, it is usually possible to establish the basic legal principles that will apply and use them to offer an informed estimation of what the compensation is likely to be.

The principles of ‘remoteness’ and ‘reasonable foreseeability’ can give rise to very complex legal disputes.  It can be difficult for someone who is not legally trained to appreciate the nuances. Indeed, even some solicitors struggle with the concepts. In the remaining part of this article we will look in greater detail at the difficulties that can arise, with particular emphasis on a recent court decision that is set to impact directly when anyone asks, ‘How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence?’

At the heart of many disputes over the level of compensation that can be recovered is the “SAAMCO” principle, named after a 1996 case which said that:

“a person under a duty to take reasonable care to provide information on which someone else will decide upon a course of action is, if negligent, not generally regarded as responsible for all the consequences of that course of action. He is responsible only for the consequences of the information being wrong.”

The facts in the SAAMCO case were relatively simple. A valuer negligently overvalued a property that the bank was going to use as security. SAAMCO claimed the negative equity on the property that had occurred as a result of a market crash.  The logic of their argument was that if the valuer had not over-valued the property in the first place, SAAMCO would not have invested in the property so that when the market crashed it wouldn’t have made even greater losses.  The courts disagreed, stating that there was a difference between “advice” and “information”.  In this instance, the valuer had merely given information on the value of the property; what SAAMCO then did with it was up to them and the valuer could not be held responsible for the consequences of the information being wrong.

Confused? It isn’t easy to immediately grasp the nuances of the judgment, particularly as there wasn’t much guidance given about the differences between “advice” and “information”.  It has always been a cause of much legal argument as to whether something is or is not “information” or “advice”.  As the Supreme Court in another case stated:

“information given by a professional man to his client is usually a specific form of advice, and most advice will involve conveying information.  Neither label really corresponds to the contents of the bottle”

It is welcome relief therefore that the Court of Appeal made its decision in Manchester Building Society -v- Grant Thornton UK LLP .  It is quite similar to the facts of SAAMCO.  Based on negligent advice by Grant Thornton, MBS entered into a series of fixed rate mortgages hedged against long term swaps. But as a result of the most recent financial crash, MBM had to close out the swaps, incurring significant transaction fees and losses.  In the Judgment the Court sets out the SAAMCO principle:

1. It is first necessary to consider whether it is an “advice” case or an “information” case. This is a necessary first step because the scope of the duty, and therefore the measure of liability, is different in the two cases.
2. It will be an “advice” case if it can be shown that it has been “left to the adviser to consider what matters should be taken into account in deciding whether to enter into the transaction”, that “his duty is to consider all relevant matters and not only specific matters in the decision” and that he is “responsible for guiding the whole decision making process”.
3. If it is an “advice” case, then the negligent adviser will have assumed responsibility for the decision to enter the transaction and will be responsible for all the foreseeable financial consequences of entering into the transaction.
4. If it is not an “advice” case, then it is an “information” case and responsibility will not have been assumed for the decision to enter the transaction.
5. If it is an “information” case, the negligent adviser/information provider will only be responsible for the foreseeable financial consequences of the advice and/or information being wrong.
6. This involves a consideration of what losses would have been suffered if the advice and/or information had been correct. It is only losses which would not have been suffered in such circumstances that are recoverable.

This clarification is going to be of immense assistance in determining whether or not a professional was providing advice and therefore how much compensation can be claimed against the likes of solicitors advising in commercial transactions, auditors and accountants.

So if you want to know, ‘How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence?’, then give us a call on 0333 888 0403 or email brief details of your case to us at [email protected] and we will provide a free initial assessment of the value of your case and the availability of no win, no fee funding.

Is tax payable on compensation? Emma Slade, a specialist professional negligence solicitor, considers this crucial question in relation to CGT

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

Benjamin Franklin.

Sadly, Franklin had the right of it and as much as we try to avoid it, both are inevitable.  There are so many different forms of tax but this article is limited to a brief consideration of the effect of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on damages and compensation received as a result of a civil claim.

Let us start from the beginning: what is CGT?  In many respects, it is an extra form of Income Tax.  Just as you pay income tax on your earnings, so you pay CGT on any gains or profit that you may make on the disposal of an asset.  Probably the simplest example is if you buy a property for £100,000 to rent out and a few years later sell it for £150,000, you will have to pay tax on that £50,000 gain.

You also have to apply that concept to compensation.  Is compensation income?  Or is it an asset where there has been a gain?  Do you pay income tax or Capital Gains Tax?

It all comes down to whether or not the compensation arose from an asset or not.  There was a bit of a hiccup in 1985 in the Zim Properties Ltd -v- Proctor case where the court was asked to determine whether the right to sue was an asset for CGT purposes. Alarmingly, it concluded that it was.  The court took the view that damages are awarded in exchange for compensation, so the right to sue was a valuable asset upon which CGT should be charged.

This brought with it inordinate problems.  If in a professional negligence scenario, for example, your surveyor overvalues your house, a civil claim for compensation is supposed to put you back into the position as if the professional negligence had not occurred. However, under the Zim principles the Claimant would have to pay tax on that sum.  It didn’t seem fair, so fortunately, HMRC introduced ESC D33 which in effect overruled Zim.  It stated that only where there is an actual underlying asset, would CGT apply. If there is no underlying asset, no CGT would be payable.

This position was changed in 2014.  With effect from 27^th January 2014, compensation that did not have an underlying asset would be exempt from CGT, but only for the first £500,000.  For amounts of compensation above this amount to be exempt, a request has to be made in writing to HMRC.

However, before the panic buttons get hit, there are many exceptions to this rule, of which the following are but a few:

1. Damages for physical injury, distress, embarrassment, loss of reputation or dignity, unfair or unlawful discrimination and for libel or slander are all exempt;
2. Loss of earnings are exempt, but the damages are reduced by the amount of tax that would have been payable had the Claimant been employed;
3. Any damages awarded to an individual by reason of his trade or employment are also exempt. In other words, if you bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal or settle an employment claim via a Compromise Agreement, then the compensation aspect will be tax free; and
4. Compensation for professional negligence claims in relation to an action in respect of a wrong or an injury is exempt.

There are two important payments though that are not exempt: taxable receipts and gains on underlying assets.

The issue of taxable receipts was considered in the case of Deeny -v- Gooda Walker.  This case arose out the Lloyd’s Names cases where the courts were asked to consider whether the damages arose out of the negligent advice given by the underwriters (professional negligence – ergo tax exempt) or whether it would be considered loss of profits.  One of the arguments used was based on the judgment in London and Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd -v- Attwooll:

“Where, pursuant to a legal right, a trader receives from another person compensation for the trader’s failure to receive a sum of money which, if it had been received, would have been credited to the amount of profits (if any) arising in any year from the trade carried on by him at the time when the compensation is so received, the compensation is to be treated for income tax purposes in the same way as that sum of money would have been treated if it had been received, instead of the compensation.” [my emphasis]

In short, if you are claiming loss of profits, that part of your damages claim is going to be subject to Income Tax and so rather than receiving the damages net of tax like you do with loss of earnings (see 2 above), the compensation will have to be “grossed up”, ie paid in full so you can discharge your own tax liability.  It is known as the ‘reverse-Gourley principle’.

In addition, if there is an underlying asset to your claim whose disposal or deemed disposal gives rise to the damages payment, the compensation is chargeable for CGT purposes.  The only example I can find to illustrate this is that suggested by John Walters in his paper Taxation of Damages, Costs and Interest:

“For example, a property in the case of an action against an estate agent for negligent advice on sale – the compensation can be treated as proceeds on a disposal, or more likely a part disposal, of the underlying asset – i.e. the property, with the allocation of base cost and availability of reliefs and exemptions appropriate to such a disposal or part disposal.”

Personally, I do not agree that is a good example as I would suggest that “negligent advice” falls under the professional negligence exemption.  A better example might be where you are suing for, say, a loss of bargain on the purchase of an investment property.  If you buy an investment property for £150,000 and sell it the following day for £200,000, you would be paying CGT on that £50,000 gain.  It seems logical therefore that if you are suing a professional for their failure to expedite that purchase and the purchase fell through, you could expect to include in the claim, the loss of that £50,000 gain.  If that is the case, I would fully expect the HMRC to be asking for its portion of that profit in which case, any settlement made with the Defendant should be grossed up to include that liability.

As I said at the beginning of this article, this is only a very brief consideration of the question, ‘is tax payable on compensation?’ – the edited highlights really – for like all tax matters, it is never straightforward and almost always fact dependent.  Even in the Deeny case, there was dissent among the Law Lords about what constituted an income receipt as opposed to a capital receipt.  In any event, I would strongly recommend that if there is any doubt, you should speak to a tax adviser.

We are specialist professional negligence solicitors, representing claimants nationwide in cases of professional negligence against solicitors, accountants, surveyors and other professionals. We offer a free case assessment service. Call 0333 888 0403, or email us at [email protected].

This article, “Is tax payable on compensation?” was reviewed and updated in November 2024.

Divorce is unpleasant.  Even in amicable divorces there are bound to be arguments as the parties try to reach agreement on dividing the assets, whilst in the most bitter of divorces, each party is strongly motivated to ‘beat’ their partner, thereby fueling the hostility.  Invariably, the parties don’t get everything they want simply because a compromise has to be reached. But sometimes, just sometimes, it is the divorce solicitor who gets it wrong.

It needs to be made clear at the outset that simply because someone does not get all that they wanted, it does not mean that the solicitor has been negligent.  For you to sue a divorce solicitor they must have acted in a way that falls below the expected professional standards. Furthermore, their error must have caused you a financial loss.

Divorce negligence case study

Let us give an example.  In a case we recently dealt with, the divorce solicitor failed to get a profesional valuation of the husband’s pension.  He worked out what he thought the value of the pension pot was and calculated what the wife would receive.  A settlement was reached based on his assumptions.  However his figures were wrong. His client received less than half of what the solicitor believed she would get. The solicitor’s mistake resulted in his client suffering serious financial loss and accordingly a negligence claim was made for compensation.

Mistakes can happen

Against the background of parties fighting over the same assets with escalating legal costs eating in to those assets, pressure is placed on divorce solicitors to keep the costs down. Shortcuts are often taken but this can result in things going terribly wrong once the dust settles.

A divorce solicitor also needs to keep a level head amid all the emotion of a relationship breakdown. It is imperitive that they retain sight of the bigger picture. Failure to do so can lead to errors being made.

Even if a fair settlement has been reached, there is still room for mistakes to arise. For example a negligently drafted settlement agreement can lead to financial loss at a much later stage.

So, can I sue my divorce solicitor?

Having started a new life following a divorce, it will take a brave soul to want to get embroiled in a fresh legal dispute. However, if your finances have suffered as a result of a solicitor’s mistake then you may have no option.

We deal with cases on a no win, no fee basis where the value of the claim exceeds £10,000 and are always happy to provide a free preliminary case assessment. If you tell us what your divorce solicitor has done wrong and how much financial loss has been suffered as a result of their mistake then we will review whether it is a case we can help you with.

We specialise in claims against solicitors. Call us on 0333 888 0403 or email us at [email protected] for a free initial assessment of your case.

Is it worth all the stress? Claiming compensation for stress and inconvenience in a professional negligence case

Ask any professional negligence lawyer what they are asked about the most, and undoubtedly queries about stress and inconvenience will be high on that list. But under English law, can someone actually recover compensation for stress caused by the conduct of a negligent professional?

Victims of professional negligence are frequently surprised to learn that legal claims for compensation for stress and inconvenience stemming from negligence are uncommon. The reason for this is that the courts have been reluctant to allow such claims for public policy reasons.

In one famous ruling a judge stated:

“A contract-breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party. This rule is not, I think, founded on the assumption that such reactions are not foreseeable, which they surely are or may be, but on considerations of policy.”

However, the bar to claims for stress and inconvenience is not absolute. If the main reason to use the services of the professional was to obtain ‘pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation’ then compensation can be awarded.

This concept of ‘pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation’ was reinforced in the case of Farley v Skinner. In this case the claimant had instructed a surveyor to complete a report on the property he was looking to purchase. The claimant put in an extra request for the surveyor to report on the effect of aircraft noise from the nearby airport (London Heathrow). The surveyor reported that while he could not guarantee zero effect, the property was not subject to aircraft disturbance frequently and was not on any flight path. However, he did not identify that the property was only a few kilometres from a stacking beacon and that at busy times planes waiting to land circled almost directly above the claimant’s home. The Judge ruled that in that case the claim was exceptional and that compensation for stress and inconvenience could be awarded..

In a recent case Shaw v Leigh Day, the question of stress and inconvenience was considered in relation to a solicitor’s negligence case. In this matter the solicitor had been instructed to represent the clients at an inquest into a relative’s death. The Court ruled that the level of emotion involved was high and unique making this different from other legal processes. If a solicitor is retained to put evidence before the coroner and jury but fails to carry out their job with sufficient diligence, the client would never receive the comfort they required. So again this case was deemed as falling within the exceptional circumstances range, where compensation could be awarded.

In general therefore while claims for stress and inconvenience are not common, they can can be pursued in limited circumstances. In most cases such claims are made in conjunction with claims for more conventional financial loss arising from the negligence, so they form one element of a larger claim.

If you are interested in claiming compensation for stress and inconvenience in a professional negligence case and believe that it falls within the exceptional circumstances highlighted then give us a call on 0333 888 0403 or email us at [email protected]

We deal with a range of negligence cases against personal injury solicitors, including claims that arise when a mistake by a solicitor leads to the case being lost or ‘struck out’. However, in this article Emma Slade looks at one particularly common cause for complaint; the injury settlement that is far too low.

A personal injury solicitor has a duty to correctly quantify the value of your claim. If they make a mistake and advise you to accept a figure that amounts to insufficient compensation then you may wish to consider a negligence claim against them. There are a number of reasons why an injury solicitor might make a mistake. It is unusual (though not unheard of) for an injury solicitor to simply get the wrong figure for a particular injury; telling you that a broken arm is ‘worth’ a few hundred rather than a few thousand pounds for instance. Mistakes resulting in the under settlement of an injury claim tend to arise from a misunderstanding of more complex legal principles that dictate what you are entitled to claim for and how much can be claimed.

By way of illustration, take the legal principle known as the ‘egg shell skull rule’.

So there you are, in the supermarket, minding your own business, trying to decide between free range eggs and organic ones, when a shopping trolley crashes into the back of you.  Now while I could start making puns about being trolleyed (you may groan if you wish), something like that can hurt.  You may even suffer a bruise or perhaps a laceration or two, but the reality is that serious injury is unlikely. But what if the resulting injuries do develop into something far worse?  Osteoarthritis or scoliosis of the spine?  Spinal stenosis leading to cervical radiculopathy (“pinched nerve”) or some other unpronounceable medical condition?  It seems a bit extreme. These are injuries that are far more likely to result from a high-impact car accident, as opposed to being “trolleyed” (sorry!).  But if before your egg-buying foray you were hale and hearty and you are now crippled you will inevitably feel aggrieved. So, what are you entitled to claim for when a relatively ‘minor’ accident results is serious injury?  Can you really claim for the full extent of your injuries?

The simple answer is, yes, you can. It is the eggshell skull rule that allows the claim to be made.  In criminal law, it is usually known by the adage, “you take your victim as you find them”. It means that if you give your victim a mild blow to the head but he has an unusually brittle skull, then even if the blow would not have harmed any other individual, you would still be responsible for any damage resulting to your victim, including brain injury or even death.  So long as some harm is foreseeable as a result of your action, then you will be liable for all harm.

However, one exception to this in a personal injury claim is where the claimant had a pre-existing condition.

We get a lot of calls from people asking, ‘can I sue my injury lawyer?’ when they feel their claim has been undersettled. They are often left in considerable pain following an accident and cannot understand why they have received so little compensation. The legal explanation for the low award could be the presence of a pre-existing medical condition. This is a condition that would have eventually shown itself in the future (regardless of the accident) and has simply been brought forward in time because of the accident.  In these circumstances you can only claim compensation for the period the condition has been exacerbated by.

Let me give an example:

Mr Roberts had been an enthusiastic football player in his youth, but in his exuberance had broken an ankle.  It had healed very well without causing him any problems.  Thirty years later though, whilst crossing a road, a car collided with him causing a number of (minor) injuries to the same ankle he had injured as a youth.  Unfortunately, although to all intents and purposes the old injury had healed, x-rays showed that there were already the first symptoms of osteoarthritis having developed in the ankle and the experts concluded that, if the accident hadn’t occurred, Mr Roberts would have been limping in three years time anyway.  So Mr Roberts was only awarded compensation for the three years by which the osteoarthritis had been exacerbated.

It can be a bitter pill to swallow, particularly when there are no obvious symptoms prior to the accident, but there is no reason to say the solicitor has been negligent or that the claim has been under settled in these circumstances.

However, where such cases can be undersettled is in the opposite situation: where the injury seems out of all proportion to the accident itself and does not stem from a pre-existing condition.  Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome is one such example where something that is relatively minor can trigger excruciating pain.

I will give you another example here on a case I had the pleasure in assisting the then Coroner of my home county when I was a mere trainee solicitor many years ago.  In that instance, our client was involved in a rear-end shunt.  It should have resulted in minor whiplash but instead, his consequential injuries were phenomenal and quite rare.  It started in his lower legs where his nerves and skin became hyper-sensitive and it gradually extended up his body.  It was quite extreme: even a whisper of a breeze across his skin had him in agony.  It resulted in him being largely wheelchair-bound and subsequently bedbound, needing 24/7 care and adapted accommodation for him and his carers.  A minor shunt had therefore devastated his life.

He made a compensation claim and the other side fought tooth and nail to establish a connection between his symptoms and a pre-existing medical condition.They were unsuccessful and eventually settled his claim for a seven figure sum.

These are extreme examples, but they illustrate that injuries aren’t always what they seem at first glance. Valuing an injury claim calls for specialist expertise and a good grasp of all the relevant legal principles. If an injury solicitor doesn’t investigate a case properly, perhaps by failing to obtain medical evidence linking a claimant’s medical condition to the accident, then the risk of under settlement arises.

If you feel that your personal injury claim has been significantly under settled, we are always happy to consider whether you can sue your injury solicitor.  If there is no evidence they have got anything wrong we may not be able to help, but if they have, well then, “the yolk’s on them”: we will be more than happy to assist.

Emma Slade is a solicitor in our professional negligence department specialising in negligence claims against solicitors on a no win, no fee basis. We offer a free case assessment service. Submit brief details by email to [email protected] or call us on 0333 888 0403.

All claimants have a duty to take reasonable steps to ‘mitigate’ their loss. By this, we mean taking reasonable action to minimise the financial impact of the solicitors negligence.  But what is a reasonable course of action?  What if, to mitigate, it is going to cost a lot of money or take too much time?  And how do you know that what you have done is ‘reasonable’?

The costs of attempting to mitigate the loss are recoverable from the negligent solicitor, even if the attempt at mitigation ultimately fails.  But if your chosen course is considered to be unreasonable, you won’t be able to recover those costs. You therefore need to choose your course wisely.

As for what is considered reasonable, the Courts have said that if it would be too costly or complicated to bring mitigating action, then you do not have to take that course of action just to protect the solicitor from the consequences of his own carelessness.  But if there is a reasonable course of action, then if you don’t take it your claim will be reduced. Determining what is reasonable or unreasonable will differ from case to case.

It is a thin line you have to tread. Be careful when considering what action you think can be taken either by you (or even the negligent solicitor) to rectify the matter.  If it can be done reasonably, then you should follow that route as far as possible.

Is the claim within the time limits?

If you are going to issue court proceedings, you need to make sure you do so in time.  Failure to comply with the Limitation Act 1980 means your case will be statute barred and you will not be able to recover any compensation.

Put simply, you need to bring a solicitors negligence claim within 6 years of the negligent act.  Usually you can identify fairly easily when the negligence occurred. It might be the date of a report, a key date that has been missed, a failed completion etc.

But what if you were unaware there has been an error until after the six years?  Not all mistakes are immediately obvious. Some only come to light much later. In these situations you can rely on s14A Limitation Act. This is known colloquially as the “date of knowledge” limitation or DOK.  With DOK claims, you have three years from the date you ought reasonably have been aware of the error to bring a claim.  Whilst sometimes this may be fairly simple to identify, in others you can easily fall foul of the “reasonable” part.  Take for example the situation where cracks are observed in a concrete base: do you use the date that you noticed the cracks or the date that your expert tells you the builder negligently poured the concrete?

Is the claim worth pursuing?

A court judgment is only worth the piece of paper it is written on unless the debtor is good for the money.  Solicitors are obliged to have Professional Indemnity Insurance in place against the possibility of a negligence claim being brought against them, but this does not necessarily mean that the insurance company has the money (in recent years, a major PII firm was declared insolvent and unable to satisfy any claims) or that the solicitor even reports the matter to the insurers.

You also need to consider the overall value of your claim.  If your claim is worth less than £10,000, it will fall into the Small Claims Court where, regardless of whether you win or lose, you will have to bear your own legal costs.  If you choose to instruct a solicitor, the costs of doing so will invariably exceed the value of the claim itself.  It is only if the claim exceeds the Small Claims Court limit that you are entitled to recover some of your legal costs if you are successful.

This segues neatly into the next point: if your claim is not in the Small Claims Court, you have to face the possibility that if you lose your claim, you may be responsible for the other side’s legal costs.  Are you sure therefore that your claim is going to stand up to scrutiny?  Do you have insurance to protect you against such a claim?

How we can help you sue a solicitor for negligence

If having read this brief article you feel you have a case to sue a solicitor for negligence and you would like specialist assistance then we will be happy to help. We deal with claims against solicitors throughout England and Wales and are experienced in handing a broad range of cases, from rights of way errors to claims being struck out, from conveyancing mistakes to cyber fraud.

We will assess your claim free of charge.  All we will need from you is some basic information about your case, particularly in relation to the five questions above. Provided there are sufficient merits in the case and the value of the claim exceeds the Small Claims Court limit (£10,000 as at September 2022), we would be happy to consider assisting on a no win, no fee basis.

Please contact us on 0333 888 0403 or email us at [email protected]

Has your solicitor missed a limitation date?

Can I claim compensation if my solicitor missed a limitation date? Find out by calling our free legal helpline for a case assessment and details of no win, no fee funding on 0333 888 0403 or emailing us at [email protected].

If your solicitor has missed a limitation date it is likely that you will be entitled to recover compensation. However, there are a number of legal points that will need to be considered before a claim can be made.

First, has the limitation date actually been missed? The limitation period is the length of time you have to issue a legal claim in court before the case becomes statute barred. For professional negligence claims for example, the basic period is six years from the date of the error. For most personal injury claims it is three years.

That might sound straightforward enough, but as with many legal principles, it isn’t always quite that simple and identifying the correct limitation date and confirming that it has definitely been missed can require considerable legal expertise.

Where it is confirmed that the limitation date has been missed, the consequences for the case van be fatal. More often than not there is no way back for the claimant after missing a limitation date and their chance of pursuing justice evaporates.

Regrettably mistakes are frequently made, leaving the client then asking, ‘Can I claim compensation if my solicitor missed a limitation date?’

To answer that question we will usually need to look at the specific facts of the case. However, in general if a solicitor fails to advise you on the need to issue court proceedings to avoid missing a limitation date it is likely that you will be able to claim compensation from them.

Below are some examples of recent cases involving solicitors who have missed a limitation date, leading to compensation claims being made against them.

Case study 1: Personal injury claim limitation date missed

A woman was travelling by plane and suffered injury when an air hostess ran over her foot with a trolley. The woman went along to a solicitor to bring a claim for her injuries. The solicitor got the airline’s insurance company to admit liability at a very early stage. It was then just the amount of compensation to be paid that was the subject of debate. As the claim got closer to the standard three year limitation period for an injury claim, the solicitor protected his client’s case by issuing court proceedings. This stops time from running and prevents the case from becoming statute barred.

The solicitor then received a letter from the airline’s solicitors, pointing out that the claim was out of time. The accident claim was statute barred under the Limitation Act.  The claimant’s solicitor had not realised that claims for an injury that occur either on a plane or on a ship have a two year limitation period, not three.

The solicitor was then sued for being negligent. He had to pay his client the compensation she would have been awarded for her PI case if the injury claim hadn’t gone wrong.

Case study 2: Solicitor’s Personal Guarantee time limit error

Mr D’s company had an overdraft with the bank. As it was a small company, the bank insisted that Mr D sign a personal guarantee. This was about seven or eight years ago. The company subsequently folded and the bank called in the guarantee.

Mr D went to see his solicitor who scoffed at the claim saying that the guarantee was over six years old and so the bank was out of time.

At the solicitor’s insistence, Mr D defended the bank’s court proceedings. Unfortunately he lost and had to meet the guarantee and pay all the banks legal costs as well. Why? A guarantee has a twelve year time limit which commences on default of the contract – not from the date the guarantee was entered into. Again the solicitor faced a compensation claim from his client.

Case study 3: Standstill Agreement error results in solicitor missing limitation date

A gentleman had problems with a negligent conveyancing solicitor, so instructed another firm to bring a claim against them. The first thing the new solicitors noticed was that, at the time they were instructed the limitation period on the claim was about to expire. The new solicitors contacted the original firm and invited them to enter into a Limitation Standstill Agreement, which they agreed to do.

A standstill agreement, for all intents and purposes, extends the limitation period by agreement between the parties. The agreement was drawn up and was said to last for three months.  At the end of the three months, the limitation period would expire unless another agreement was entered into, which is exactly what the parties did.  They used the same agreement as before, just updating it.  In fact, they did it a total of four times, extending the limitation period each time.

For various reasons, the client had to instruct a new firm of solicitors and chose us. His solicitors sent the file over to us. There were four standstill agreements, all back to back, which had extended the limitation period. However, on closer inspection, we noticed that there was a mistake. The Standstill Agreements had all been carefully drafted stating that they related to a claim that our client was going to bring against his former conveyancing solicitors for purchase of “5 Mawdsley Avenue”. The problem was that he had actually purchased “75 Mawdsley Avenue”.

Such a tiny, little mistake; such huge consequences. The Standstill Agreements were invalid. The limitation period therefore expired ages ago. The second set of solicitors had been negligent and we were instructed to pursue a negligence claim against them.

How we can help you claim compensation if your solicitor has missed a limitation date

We hope these case studies have helped you understand how limitation dates work and the problems that can arise. If you think your solicitor has missed a limitation date, contact us now to arrange a free case assessment. Call 0333 888 0403 or email us at [email protected]

How do I sue my solicitor if they make a mistake?

If you are contemplating a claim because your solicitor has made a mistake, then you can contact us for a free assessment of your claim and details of No Win, No Fee funding. Call 0333 888 0403 or send brief details of your case to us at [email protected]

My solicitor has been negligent, what can I do?

This is usually the starting point of any negligence claim against a solicitor. Lawyers often refer to this as the ‘breach of duty’. A solicitor will owe a duty of care to his clients. When that duty has been breached then negligence will follow. The solicitor’s duty of care will vary from case to case according to the type of work being undertaken, the extent of the retainer and the experience of the client.When assessing whether a solicitor has been negligent it is common to compare the solicitor’s conduct with the standard to be expected from a reasonably competent solicitor.

Has my solicitor’s mistake resulted in me suffering financial loss?

To sue your solicitor it is important to consider what financial loss has been suffered as a direct result of the solicitor’s bad advice. In particular it is vital to determine whether or not the case falls within the ambit of the Small Claims Court. The small claims court limit is currently £10,000 (September 2022). If you go to a small claims court then only limited legal costs are likely to be recoverable. This means that it is generally uneconomic for the claimant to appoint a solicitor to handle the case.

Where the value of the claim exceeds the small claims court limit the economics change due to the fact that some legal costs are recoverable from the other side. This makes it more viable for solicitors to deal with the claim. And the greater the value of the claim, the more viable it is for solicitors to be retained.

However, it is only commercially viable for us to work on a No Win, No Fee basis where the value of the claim exceeds £25,000.

It is also important to bear in mind that the financial loss you are claiming must be direct. If there has been an intervening event that has caused the loss, or the loss would have been suffered even if the solicitor had not breached their duty of care, then the losses may not be recoverable

How to make a claim against a solicitor on a No Win, No Fee basis

If your solicitor has caused you to suffer financial losses in excess of £25,000, and you would like to pursue a claim on a No Win, No Fee basis then we will be happy to assess your case, free of charge. In order for us to be able to take your case on under a No Win, No Fee agreement we will need to establish that:

1. your solicitor has acted in beach of their duty of care;
2. you have suffered financial loss as a direct result of that negligence; and
3. the claim has a value that is in excess of £25,000.

If you feel that your case would be eligible for No Win, No Fee funding then contact us for a free case assessment.

Call 0333 888 0403 or send brief details of your case to us at [email protected]

If you are making a claim against a surveyor it is important to identify the key facts of the case at the outset. This will help you to establish liability against the surveyor and identify the losses you wish to include in the compensation claim.

To assist you with this we have prepared a short ‘Surveyors Negligence Claim Sheet‘.

You can use the Surveyors Negligence Claim Sheet as an aide memoir and it will help you to gather together key facts of the case.

If you are thinking about making a claim against a surveyor and would like us to give you a free initial assessment of the legal merits of the case and its suitability for no win, no fee funding, then simply complete the claim sheet and return it to us by post or email.

Each surveyors negligence case is different, so it’s important to bear in mind that a ‘one size fits all’ claim sheet like this can never be more than a general guide. You should therefore add any additional information you think might be relevant to your case. If you are not sure what to put in one of the boxes then simply leave it blank and move on to the next one.

We are able to assist with making a claim against a surveyor on a No Win, No Fee basis, where the financial loss suffered by you is more than the County Court ‘small claims’ limit which is currently (September 2022) £10,000. We can deal with claims that have a value of less than £10,000, but only on a privately funded basis.

If you encounter any problems when filling in the claim sheet then just give our free legal helpline a call on 0333 888 0403.

Click here to download the Surveyors Negligence claim sheet. This is an interactive PDF so you can so you can fill it in, save it, and simply email to [email protected], no need to print or scan.

When making a negligence claim against a solicitor it is important to identify as early as possible the key facts of the case. This will help you and your legal team to establish liability against the solicitor and identify the losses you wish to recover.

To assist you with this we have prepared a few short ‘Solicitors Negligence Claim Sheets’.

The claim sheets are a handy aide memoir and will help you to marshal the key facts of the case so they can be presented in a way that will best support your solicitors negligence claim.

If you are thinking about making a negligence claim against a solicitor and would like us to provide a free initial assessment of the legal merits of your case and its suitability for no win, no fee funding then please complete the claim sheet below and send it to us by post or email for review.

Every case is different, so please bear in mind that a ‘one size fits all’ claim sheet like this is merely a guide. Please feel free to add any additional information you think is relevant  to your case. And if you are not sure about what to put in a particular box then you can leave it blank and go on to the next section.

We are able to assist with making a claim against a solicitor on a No Win, No Fee basis, where the financial loss suffered as a direct result of the negligence exceeds £10,000, which is the current small claims court financial limit.

If you run into any difficulties when completing the form, please call our free legal helpline on 0333 888 0403.