McLoughlin v Grovers (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1743 (22 November 2001)

McLoughlin v Grovers (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1743 (22 November 2001)

The trial judge erred in applying the 'person of ordinary fortitude' and hindsight foreseeability tests. In cases of professional negligence where the claimant is a primary victim, the correct test is whether psychiatric injury to the particular claimant was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach, considering what the defendant knew or ought to have known. The preliminary issue was improperly framed and insufficiently factually developed; thus, the judgment must be set aside and the matter remitted for full trial.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1743
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Martin McLoughlin; Defendant/respondent: Grovers (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; matter remitted for full trial.
Legal Topics
Psychiatric Injury, Foreseeability, Duty of Care, Remoteness of Damage, Solicitor's Negligence, Damages for Mental Distress
Tort Law Contract Law Professional Negligence Psychiatric Injury Foreseeability Duty of Care Remoteness of Damage Solicitor's 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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin McLoughlin

Claimant/appellant

Grovers (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether psychiatric illness suffered by the claimant was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant solicitors' alleged negligence in the conduct of criminal defence.
  2. 2 Whether the correct legal test for foreseeability of psychiatric injury was applied by the trial judge.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant, as a primary victim, is entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury in contract and/or tort.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in applying the 'person of ordinary fortitude' and hindsight foreseeability tests. In cases of professional negligence where the claimant is a primary victim, the correct test is whether psychiatric injury to the particular claimant was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach, considering what the defendant knew or ought to have known. The preliminary issue was improperly framed and insufficiently factually developed; thus, the judgment must be set aside and the matter remitted for full trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; matter remitted for full trial.

Orders

  • Full trial of all issues, including causation and damages, to proceed.