Coote v Ullstein [2022] EWHC 607 (QB) (11 April 2022)

Coote v Ullstein [2022] EWHC 607 (QB) (11 April 2022)

The court held that the correct approach is to distinguish between what the claimant would have done (to be proved on the balance of probabilities) and what third parties would have done (to be assessed as a loss of chance). The claimant does not have to prove she would have recovered damages, only that she lost a real and substantial chance. The evidence, including after-coming expert evidence that could have been available at the notional trial date, shows the claimant's underlying claim was at best speculative and had no real prospect of success. Therefore, the professional negligence claim has no real prospect of success and should be struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 607 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Rachael Coote (by Ann Coote her mother and Litigation Friend); First Defendant: Augustus Ullstein QC; Second Defendant: Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed by summary judgment/strike out
Legal Topics
Loss of Chance, Limitation Periods, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Causation, Legal Aid, Product Liability
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Loss of Chance Limitation Periods Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Causation Legal Aid +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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rachael Coote (by Ann Coote her mother and Litigation Friend)

Claimant

Augustus Ullstein QC

First Defendant

Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of success in her professional negligence claim against her former counsel and solicitors for alleged negligent advice on limitation under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted on the basis that the underlying claim against the vaccine manufacturer had no real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the claimant lost a real and substantial chance of recovering damages in the underlying litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the correct approach is to distinguish between what the claimant would have done (to be proved on the balance of probabilities) and what third parties would have done (to be assessed as a loss of chance). The claimant does not have to prove she would have recovered damages, only that she lost a real and substantial chance. The evidence, including after-coming expert evidence that could have been available at the notional trial date, shows the claimant's underlying claim was at best speculative and had no real prospect of success. Therefore, the professional negligence claim has no real prospect of success and should be struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed by summary judgment/strike out

Orders

  • Claim struck out and/or summary judgment granted in favour of both defendants
  • No trial to proceed on the merits of the professional negligence claim