Wright v Troy Lucas (a firm) & Anor

Wright v Troy Lucas (a firm) & Anor

The defendants entered into a contract to provide legal services to the claimant, held themselves out as possessing relevant skill and experience, and owed a duty of care equivalent to a competent legal professional. They breached that duty and the contract by failing to properly advise and conduct the claimant's clinical negligence claim, causing the claimant to lose a real and valuable chance of a better outcome. The claim was not statute-barred. The claimant's own culpability warranted a reduction in the value of the lost chance, but did not eliminate liability.

Parties
Claimant: Paul Wright; First Defendant: Troy Lucas (A Firm); Second Defendant: George Rusz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; judgment for the claimant with reduction for contributory culpability.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Loss of Chance, Limitation Periods, Mc Kenzie Friends, Clinical Negligence, Breach of Contract
Professional Negligence Contract Law Tort Law Duty of Care Loss of Chance Limitation Periods Mc Kenzie Friends Clinical Negligence +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Wright

Claimant

Troy Lucas (A Firm)

First Defendant

George Rusz

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the claim statute-barred?
  2. 2 What was the status of the defendants in the underlying claim?
  3. 3 Was there a contract between the claimant and the defendants and what were its terms?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants entered into a contract to provide legal services to the claimant, held themselves out as possessing relevant skill and experience, and owed a duty of care equivalent to a competent legal professional. They breached that duty and the contract by failing to properly advise and conduct the claimant's clinical negligence claim, causing the claimant to lose a real and valuable chance of a better outcome. The claim was not statute-barred. The claimant's own culpability warranted a reduction in the value of the lost chance, but did not eliminate liability.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; judgment for the claimant with reduction for contributory culpability.

Orders

  • Defendants found liable for breach of contract and negligence.
  • Damages to be assessed based on loss of chance, with a 35% deduction for claimant's own culpability.