McLouglin v Jones & Ors

McLouglin v Jones & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the claim for loss of capital appreciation in relation to properties sold as a consequence of the defendants’ breach of duty could be reinstated, as it was integral to the claim for loss of rental income and could be addressed at trial without injustice. However, the claim for loss of capital appreciation based on hypothetical acquisition of additional properties raised fundamentally new issues that could not be fairly addressed at such a late stage, and thus was properly struck out. The appeal was allowed only to the extent of reinstating the claim relating to properties actually sold.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: McLoughlin; Defendants/respondents: Jones and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against High Court Order Striking Out Part of Schedule of Loss
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Striking Out Claims, Professional Negligence by Solicitors, Damages Assessment, Litigation Delay
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Amendment of Pleadings Striking Out Claims Professional Negligence by Solicitors Damages Assessment Litigation Delay

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McLoughlin

Claimant/appellant

Jones and Others

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against High Court Order Striking Out Part of Schedule of Loss

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend the schedule of loss to include new claims for loss of capital appreciation and acquisition of additional properties shortly before trial
  2. 2 Whether the High Court judge erred in striking out parts of the schedule of loss as oppressive and unacceptable

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the claim for loss of capital appreciation in relation to properties sold as a consequence of the defendants’ breach of duty could be reinstated, as it was integral to the claim for loss of rental income and could be addressed at trial without injustice. However, the claim for loss of capital appreciation based on hypothetical acquisition of additional properties raised fundamentally new issues that could not be fairly addressed at such a late stage, and thus was properly struck out. The appeal was allowed only to the extent of reinstating the claim relating to properties actually sold.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Claim for loss of capital appreciation in relation to properties sold reinstated