Bown v Las Direct Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1798 (10 October 2001)

Bown v Las Direct Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1798 (10 October 2001)

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he could have discharged the debt himself, and there was insufficient evidence to establish a real and substantial chance that a prospective employer would have taken over the debt and employed him. The trial judge erred in adjourning quantum for further evidence after a full trial, as this amounted to allowing a new case to be made outside the pleaded issues.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1798
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Peter Norman Bown; Defendant/appellant: LAS Direct Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Employment References, Damages, Loss of Chance, Contract Interpretation
Employment Law Tort Law Negligent Misstatement Employment References Damages Loss of Chance Contract Interpretation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Norman Bown

Claimant/respondent

LAS Direct Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether LAS Direct was negligent in providing an inaccurate employment reference for Mr Bown
  2. 2 Whether the inaccurate reference caused loss to Mr Bown (causation)
  3. 3 Proper assessment of damages for loss of chance of employment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he could have discharged the debt himself, and there was insufficient evidence to establish a real and substantial chance that a prospective employer would have taken over the debt and employed him. The trial judge erred in adjourning quantum for further evidence after a full trial, as this amounted to allowing a new case to be made outside the pleaded issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Payment out of interest as asked.
  • Costs of the trial remitted to the trial judge.