PROVING THINGS 13: LOSS, THERE WAS NO LOSS

March 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Uncategorized

The case of Bacciottini -v- Gotelee and Goldsmith [2016] EWCA Civ 170 is one that may have you scratching your head. The claimants claimed, at one stage, over £300,000 in damages. The judge awarded £250.00. It is a potent lesson in the need to assess the value of a claim and the impact of a simpl...

Enjoying this post?

Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium content.

Become a member

Already a member? Log in below

Tags: Civil evidence, Damages

2 Responses

Tim · March 20, 2016 at 01:00:28 · →

I’m not sure it was a potent lesson about assessing the value of a claim. The Claimant’s argument was highly respectable, on the basis of Gardner v Marsh & Parsons. The outcome may be a potent reminder that, where there appear to be conflicting lines of authority, the Court of Appeal may well choose the line which you don’t want it to choose.
gexall · March 20, 2016 at 20:45:48 · →

I have read Gardner, it says”… the issue is primarily one of fact”. The fact was that the claimants had lost £250. They claimed £300,000 (initially) and then sought £100,000 in damages for a loss they had never suffered. The facts relied upon in mitigation were “years after” the negligence and held to be too remote. The “considerable” lapse of time in remedying the defects had prevented the claimants from selling the property. There was an attempt to impose these principles on a totally different set of facts. I still scratch my head.