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

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

The claimant's prospects of success in the underlying claim against SKB were negligible, as she could not establish causation between the MMR vaccine and her epilepsy, would not have maintained legal aid funding, and had no real or substantial chance of recovering damages. Therefore, the professional negligence claim has no real prospect of success and should be struck out or disposed of by summary judgment.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 607
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 struck out and/or summary judgment granted for both defendants
Legal Topics
Loss of a Chance, Limitation Period, Causation, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Legal Aid, Product Liability
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Loss of a Chance Limitation Period Causation Summary Judgment Strike Out 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 4 Authorities cited 22 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 legal representatives for loss of a chance to pursue a product liability claim against a vaccine manufacturer
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or disposed of by summary judgment due to lack of real prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether the claimant could have pursued the underlying claim without legal aid and whether the prospects of success were more than negligible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's prospects of success in the underlying claim against SKB were negligible, as she could not establish causation between the MMR vaccine and her epilepsy, would not have maintained legal aid funding, and had no real or substantial chance of recovering damages. Therefore, the professional negligence claim has no real prospect of success and should be struck out or disposed of by summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out and/or summary judgment granted for both defendants

Orders

  • The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or (b) and/or summary judgment is granted under CPR 24.2(a)(i) and (b) in favour of both defendants.