Procter v Raleys Solicitors

Procter v Raleys Solicitors

Raleys Solicitors were negligent in failing to ensure, through a meeting or telephone conversation, that Mr Procter understood his entitlement to claim for services under the compensation scheme. The written advice was unclear or misleading regarding the ability to claim for gratuitous assistance, and the solicitors failed to follow up on clear indications that Mr Procter may not have understood his rights, resulting in loss of a valuable claim.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Andrew Procter; Defendant/appellant: Raleys Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Care for Solicitors, Duty to Advise Clients, Loss of Chance, Compensation Schemes for Industrial Disease
Professional Negligence Solicitors' Duties Standard of Care for Solicitors Duty to Advise Clients Loss of Chance Compensation Schemes for Industrial Disease

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

Parties

Andrew Procter

Claimant/respondent

Raleys Solicitors

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Raleys Solicitors were negligent in failing to ensure Mr Procter understood his entitlement to claim for 'services' under the compensation scheme.
  2. 2 Whether the written advice provided by Raleys was misleading or unclear regarding the ability to claim for gratuitous assistance.

Ratio Decidendi

Raleys Solicitors were negligent in failing to ensure, through a meeting or telephone conversation, that Mr Procter understood his entitlement to claim for services under the compensation scheme. The written advice was unclear or misleading regarding the ability to claim for gratuitous assistance, and the solicitors failed to follow up on clear indications that Mr Procter may not have understood his rights, resulting in loss of a valuable claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Damages award to Mr Procter for loss of chance upheld
  • Payment on account of costs to Mr Procter in the sum of £50,000