Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5

Facts

  • The claimant alleged that Raleys Solicitors negligently failed to advise him about a potential claim for services rendered during his employment.
  • The claimant argued that if he had been properly advised, he would have pursued a compensation claim and obtained a financial benefit.
  • The evidence presented by the claimant was determined by the court to be insufficient to establish a real and substantial chance of securing compensation, as it lacked necessary factual and evidential support.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the lost opportunity was real and substantial rather than merely speculative.
  2. Whether the claimant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate both the existence and value of the lost opportunity.
  3. Whether causation and quantification should be kept distinct when assessing lost chance claims in professional negligence cases.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court held that claimants in loss of chance professional negligence claims must present robust evidence showing the lost opportunity had a real and substantial value.
  • The Court found that the claimant’s assertions in this case were speculative and unsupported by adequate evidence.
  • The Court reaffirmed that causation and quantification are distinct elements in such claims; claimants must first prove the breach caused the loss of a real opportunity before quantifying its value.
  • The claimant’s failure to establish the existence of a real and substantial lost chance meant the claim did not succeed.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of lost chance allows for recovery of damages for missed opportunities, but only if the lost chance is real, substantial, and not speculative.
  • The burden is on the claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, both that they would have taken the necessary steps to pursue the opportunity and that those steps had a real prospect of a favorable outcome.
  • There is a clear distinction between the requirement to prove causation (that negligence caused a lost chance) and the process of quantification (valuing the lost chance once established).
  • Reference was made to principles in Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602 regarding assessment of lost chance claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 underlines the high evidentiary standard required from claimants in lost chance professional negligence cases, mandating proof that a missed opportunity was real and substantial, and decisively distinguishing between causation and quantification in such claims.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal