Day v Cook [2001] EWCA Civ 592 (26 April 2001)

Day v Cook [2001] EWCA Civ 592 (26 April 2001)

Where a company suffers loss caused by a breach of duty owed to it, only the company may sue for that loss; a shareholder cannot recover for diminution in share value that merely reflects the company's loss, even if the duty was also owed to the shareholder. The losses claimed by Mr Day were reflective of company losses, and thus his claim for diminution in share value fails under the no reflective loss principle.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 592
Parties
Appellant: Eric Terence Day; Respondent: James Thomas Gregory Cook
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Bristol Mercantile Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Reflective Loss, Shareholder Claims, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Assignment of Claims, Damages Assessment
Company Law Professional Negligence Fiduciary Duty Reflective Loss Shareholder Claims Solicitor's Duty of Care Breach of Fiduciary Duty Assignment of Claims +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Terence Day

Appellant

James Thomas Gregory Cook

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Bristol Mercantile Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a shareholder can recover damages for diminution in value of shareholding where the loss reflects company loss caused by solicitor's breach of duty
  2. 2 Whether the solicitor owed duties to the shareholder personally or to the company
  3. 3 Whether the 'no reflective loss' principle applies to bar the shareholder's claim

Ratio Decidendi

Where a company suffers loss caused by a breach of duty owed to it, only the company may sue for that loss; a shareholder cannot recover for diminution in share value that merely reflects the company's loss, even if the duty was also owed to the shareholder. The losses claimed by Mr Day were reflective of company losses, and thus his claim for diminution in share value fails under the no reflective loss principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Mr Day's claim for diminution in value of his shareholding in TL is dismissed as barred by the reflective loss principle.
  • Mr Day is entitled to recover £100,000 assigned from TL, £13,581.43 lent to DEAL, and £36,000 paid under guarantee to Hill Samuel.