Rachael Coote v Augustus Ullstein QC

Rachael Coote v Augustus Ullstein QC

The claimant has no real prospect of success in her professional negligence claim because, on the available evidence, her underlying claim against SKB had no real or substantial prospect of success. The expert evidence supporting causation was unsustainable, there was no supportive epidemiological evidence, and the claimant would not have been able to maintain legal aid funding. The loss of a chance is assessed as negligible (well below 10%), and thus not actionable.

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 / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment for the defendants; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Loss of a Chance, Limitation Periods, Causation, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Loss of a Chance Limitation Periods Causation Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 17 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 / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of success in her professional negligence claim against her former legal advisers for loss of a chance to pursue a product liability claim
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment entered for the defendants due to lack of causation and prospects of success

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has no real prospect of success in her professional negligence claim because, on the available evidence, her underlying claim against SKB had no real or substantial prospect of success. The expert evidence supporting causation was unsustainable, there was no supportive epidemiological evidence, and the claimant would not have been able to maintain legal aid funding. The loss of a chance is assessed as negligible (well below 10%), and thus not actionable.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the defendants; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for both defendants against the claimant.
  • Claim dismissed for lack of real prospect of success.