Banking and finance dispute resolution
For the latest news and comment on banking and finance disputes.
For the latest news and comment on banking and finance disputes.
For all the latest news and comment in clinical negligence healthcare law
This collection looks at the latest news and comment on commercial contracting healthcare law. With the health and social care sector under…
For all the latest news and comment in employment and pensions healthcare law
For all the latest legal and regulatory news and comment in health technology
This collection contains DAC B eachcroft's latest report, The Route to Integrated Healthcare , which provides the first practical examples of how…
This collection looks at the latest strategic, commercial, regulatory and negligence legal and advisory news and comment in health and social care. …
For all the latest news and comment on employment and pensions law.
DAC Beachcroft Dublin specialises in insurance, professional indemnity, defendant personal injury, health, commercial litigation and employment work.…
For all the latest new and comment in tax law.
The GC Collective collection offers insight and comment for General Counsels (GCs) and in-house legal teams.
For the latest news and comment on Corporate, M&A and Equity Capital Markets.
Analysis, commentary and checklists on the legal and governance implications of Brexit on businesses operating in, and trading with, the UK
The Accountant's Liability Collection brings you topical news and insight of interest to accountants, actuaries, trustees and other financial…
Events and online training for the health and social care sector.
DAC Beachcroft's LatAm Quarterly Newsletter discusses topical news and issues in Latin America
In response to client suggestions and requests, DAC Beachcroft's insurance sector flagship publication.
For all the latest legal and regulatory news and comment in health and social care integration
For all the latest news and comment in corporate regulatory healthcare law
Find advice, commentary and thought leadership on all aspects of Director's & Officer's Insurance; from contract formation through to complex…
This collection looks at the latest news, comment and development on the law affecting mental health services. The law affecting mental health…
Our market-leading Information Law team regularly publish articles and updates addressing the ever-evolving Information Law landscape.
This collection looks at our Safety, Health and Environment Team and the products and services they can provide. In the climate of increased…
The Insurance Act 2015 comes into force in August 2016 and will represent a significant change to insurance contract law in this country. This…
Legislative changes are bringing major changes to the Insurance landscape. This collection houses DAC Beachcroft's alerts on the pertinent issues.
For all the latest news and comment in clinical regulatory healthcare law
Organisations face ever-increasing expectations from Government, regulators, customers or service users, and other stakeholders, so scrutiny and…
For all the latest legal and regulatory news and comment in healthcare estates and facilities management
This collection addresses the full spectrum of cyber security and data risk management – the zeitgeist of our age.
We have acted for clients in the majority of significant product liability cases that have been decided in the UK over the last 35 years. Our product…
Considering the future landscapes of our cities
The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force on 25 May 2016. A rewrite of European data protection law, the GDPR imposes…
Considering the future of housing
For the latest news and comment on public procurement law.
Welcome to the Construction Risks collection. This space is used to report upon issues of interest to those who seek to allocate, manage and reduce…
Technology, brands and intellectual capital are key assets for any successful business. Our intellectual property (IP) team are experts at helping…
Considering the future of retail
The Insurance Market Conditions and Trends report is DAC Beachcroft's insurance sector flagship publication. Now in its tenth year, the report…
The Solicitors' Risk Collection addresses issues and developments affecting legal practitioners, and the professional indemnity insurers of legal…
Published On: 1 March 2016
Although a claim against a firm of solicitors, the Harding Homes v Bircham Dyson Bell decision is of significance to accountants and financial professionals, because of the rulings made as to the burden of proof and the evaluation of the chance said to have been lost by the professional's negligence.
The defendant solicitors were instructed by Harding Homes to act in respect of a £9.5 million loan obtained from GMAC-RFC Property Finance (GMAC) to finance a residential development in Colchester.
The second to fourth claimants each provided a personal guarantee to GMAC for Harding Homes' liabilities in relation to the development. Although the guarantee was titled "Interest shortfall and cost overrun guarantee", the Defendant failed to notice that the version executed included (in error) a wider clause providing for an all-monies guarantee.
The Claimants failed to comply with the loan agreement and GMAC served a Notice of Default. Negotiations were unsuccessful and GMAC served a demand on the claimants based on the all monies guarantee for the £8.9 million owed by Harding Homes. Further negotiations resulted in the execution of a forbearance agreement and eventually a full and final settlement. Payments of approximately £4.3 million were made to GMAC.
The Claimants claimed that, as a result of the solicitors' negligence, they had lost the opportunity to obtain a more favourable outcome from their negotiations with GMAC, both as to the sum to buy GMAC out and as to profit on the development, and they sought damages. The solicitors admitted they had been negligent, but denied the existence of the all-monies clause in the guarantee had any material effect on the claimants' negotiating position.
To succeed, the Claimants needed to prove that, if there had been no breach of duty by the solicitors, they would have acted differently and negotiated a better settlement at £2–3 million. Further, that there was a real and substantial (not merely speculative) chance that GMAC would have agreed to sell the site for £2 or £3 million, and the claimants would have obtained funding to enable such agreement to take place.
The Judge also held that the evidential burden fell on the solicitors to show there was no causal link between their negligence and the alleged loss.
The Judge decided that although the Claimants would have conducted the negotiations differently had the all-monies guarantee not been mistakenly included, they had not demonstrated they had lost a real and substantial chance to negotiate a different resolution with GMAC, which would have resulted in a better outcome, nor that there was a reasonable and substantial chance of obtaining the necessary funding.
As the prospects of success were negligible, causation had not been made out. Accordingly only nominal damages were awarded on account of the solicitors' breach of duty.
Where the decision is of interest beyond solicitor negligence cases is in the Judge’s application of the principles set out in Mount v Barker Austin (1998) when holding that the evidential burden fell on the professional to prove there was no causal link between its negligence and the loss. He also held that the Claimant should be given the benefit of any doubt when assessing damages. The Mount decision and the cases following it were all cases where the solicitors' negligence had led to the loss of chance to pursue litigation. By acting for the client in the litigation, the solicitor therefore impliedly believed the litigation had value, and that the evidential burden should therefore be on the solicitors to prove that it did not.
The solicitors here argued a loss of chance in litigation was quite different to a loss of chance in commercial negotiations where there is no presumption the client would achieve a better result in negotiation than was in fact achieved. By extending the Mount principles to a loss of chance in commercial negotiation, the Judge appears to have made new law. This could have a significant impact on the outcome of claims against accountants, and other financial professionals where allegations of negligent advice in relation to commercial transactions are made. Many such claims succeed or fail due to the quality of the evidence given at trial and the burden of proof in those cases can be crucial to the result.
The case involved multiple contingencies. The Judge ruled it would be wrong to mechanically discount the value of the lost chance by applying percentage upon percentage when assessing the chance lost, and instead the chances of the various contingencies happening should be looked at in the round. This too is likely to produce a more favourable result for claimants if widely adopted.