Legal Articles

Professional negligence claims causation

Home / Knowledge base / Professional negligence claims causation

Posted by Susan Hopcraft on 08 February 2012

Susan Hopcraft - Professional Negligence Lawyer
Susan Hopcraft Partner

Solicitors negligence; but would you have done anything different? 

One of the key elements in recovering damages following solicitors negligence is proving that their negligence caused you loss. In other words, can you show that you relied on the advice and would have done something different if you had been advised properly? 

That sounds as if it should be very easy in every case, but a relatively recent high profile claim against a solicitor went to appeal before it was accepted that the client had been relying on the advice. The case neatly summarises the need to show that the solicitors negligence has in fact caused loss.

Levicom vs Linklaters

In Levicom vs Linklaters the trial judge held that Linklaters, a leading London law firm, had negligently advised Levicom, a telecommunications company active in the Baltic States, in relation to their claim for breach of contract against another European telecoms company. However, because there was no evidence that Levicom would have settled the dispute even if Linklaters’ advice had been less optimistic, the judge ruled that Levicom had suffered no damage in consequence of the solicitors negligence. Levicom were awarded damages of just £5, and were ordered to pay Linklaters’, no doubt substantial, defence costs.  

This must have been received as nothing short of a disaster by Levicom, in circumstances where the judge agreed that solicitors negligence had occurred: salt in the wound, perhaps. 

The appeal court looked more closely at the advice sought by Levicom when they were considering whether to proceed with the dispute or settle. They agreed that the advice from Linklaters was too strong and failed to address the extent of loss suffered by Levicom. Crucially, they gave far greater weight to the several reassurances that the client had sought from their legal advisers leading up to their decision to press forward.  

The appeal judges commented: 

“One has to ask why a commercial company should seek expensive City solicitors' advice (and do so repeatedly) if they were not to act on it.” 

“When a solicitor gives advice that his client has a strong case to start litigation rather than settle and the client then does just that, the normal inference is that the advice is causative. Of course the inference is rebuttable – it may be possible to show that the client would have gone ahead willy-nilly. But that was certainly not shown on the evidence here. The Judge should have approached the case on the basis that the evidential burden had shifted to Linklaters to prove that its advice was not causative.”


It is not enough to prove solicitors negligence; their failings must be linked to a proved loss. However, it is reassuring to know that the courts in this case required the professional to show that the client did not rely, rather than the other way round.

About the author

Susan is a disputes and professional negligence lawyer, mainly in the financial services sector.

Susan Hopcraft

Susan is a disputes and professional negligence lawyer, mainly in the financial services sector.

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only turned a bad situation critical for many retailers and hospitality venues but has also turned the spotlight on the wider commercial sector too. Almost all businesses operating across the country have suffered financially to a greater or lesser extent as result of the economic downturn precipitated by the imposition of lockdown in March.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’. The claimants had been made bankrupt in 2015 and the matter before the Court concentrated on whether or not the property concerned was, indeed, the claimants’ principal residence at the time of the bankruptcy.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
How can we help?
01926 732512