PROVING THINGS 276: APPEAL JUDGE OVERTURNS TRIAL JUDGE’S “INFERENCES” OF LOSS: DAMAGES AWARD OF £347,285 REPLACED WITH £NIL
This is a classic “Proving Things” case, the only surprise being that it reached the appeal stage. On appeal the the judge overturned the trial judge’s findings in favour of the defendant’s counterclaim and reduced a damages award of £347,285…
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 8: PROVING THINGS – OR NOT PROVING THINGS, AS THE CASE MAY BE…
The “Proving things” series is the longest running feature of this blog. Initially I thought it would be a series of then posts. I was planning to end it at a hundred when a chance conversation on the Leeds Legal…
PROVING THINGS 271: “THAT IS SIMPLY NOT AN ADEQUATE WAY OF ADVANCING A CLAIM FOR £8 MILLION”:
We are looking at a case that shows that both sides can fail to prove things. Here we have a claimant who failed to prove a claim for £8 million. On any view this was quite a significant omission. (No evidence…
MEMBER NEWS: MORE ON THE “BACK CATALOGUE 2”: THE FIRST 100 POSTS ON “PROVING THINGS”: “IF YOU DON’T PROVE IT YOU DON’T GET IT”
The “Proving things” series has proven to be very resilient and very long lasting. It started in February 2016 and, as of today, there are 267 posts under this heading. More often than the matters covered relate to “not proving…
PROVING THINGS 265: SPEND SIX WEEKS IN COURT, WIN ON LIABILITY AND RECEIVE NOTHING IN DAMAGES: TOY STORY – THE SCARY VERSION
Here we have a case where the claimant spent some six weeks in court, established that the defendant was in breach, but recovered nothing in damages. It may well be an object lesson in failing to prove loss. (A photo taken…
PROVING DAMAGES – THE CLAIMANT LAWYER’S BASIC TASK: WEBINAR 19th MARCH 2025
The “Proving Things” series on this blog is now up to number 256. The vast majority of this series is, in fact, about not proving things. That is where litigants fail to bring sufficient (sometimes any) evidence to court to prove…
PROVING THINGS 245: A FAILURE TO PROVE A LOSS OF EARNINGS: A CLAIM PUT AT OVER £2 MILLION AND £23,000 AWARDED
In McInerney v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (Victimisation) [2024] EAT 158 HHJ James Tayler (in the Employment Appeal Tribunal) dismissed the claimant’s appeal in relation to loss of earnings. The Employment Tribunal had found that the claimant had failed…
PROVING THINGS 242: THE CLAIMANT WHO WAS GIVEN A SECOND CHANCE TO PROVE HIS DAMAGES CLAIM
We are looking again at the judgment of Mr Justice Julian Knowles in Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2024] EWHC 2227 (KB). This was looked at earlier in relation to the trial judge’s observations about the wholly inadequate counter-schedule. However…
PROVING THINGS 233: THE DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT – BUT THE DAMAGES ARE NIL
In Hope Capital Ltd v Alexander Reece Thomson LLP [2023] EWHC 2389 (KB) Mr Justice Constable found that the claimant had suffered no loss. This could be an expensive loss for the claimant, after a seven day trial. “”For these…
PROVING THINGS 229: CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE CERTAIN HEADS OF DAMAGES: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
The judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in Lal v Reeder [2023] EWHC 1437 (KB) is a classic example of a failure to prove things. The trial judge found that the claimant had failed to establish certain heads of damage. That…
PROVING THINGS 237: FAILURE TO PROVE A NUISANCE: NO LOSS OF INCOME WHEN YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EARN IT
The judgment of HHJ Russen QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Ray v Windrush Riverside Properties Ltd [2022] EWHC 2210 (TCC) gives two examples relevant to the “Proving Things” series. Firstly the claimant failed to prove a nuisance….
THE NEED FOR A CLAIMANT TO PROVE INJURY: WITHOUT EVIDENCE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
The earlier post on proving causation highlights the matters that claimants need to prove when bringing a claim for damages. One essential element is that a claimant needs to prove damages. One case that shows a clear illustration of this…
PROVING DAMAGES: WEBINAR 25th NOVEMBER 2021
At the moment there are 217 individual posts in the “Proving Things” series on this blog. Many, if not most, of the posts relate to a failure by a party to prove a crucial piece of their case at trial….
PROVING THINGS 216: THE DANGERS OF RELYING ON EXPERT REPORT TO PROVE VALUE
There are some similarities between the case of Serene Construction Ltd v Salata and Associates Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2433 (Ch) and the previous post in this series. In both cases the claimant’s case related to the valuation of…
PROVING THINGS 210: HAVE EVIDENCE OF VALUE AT TRIAL TO AVOID THAT SINKING FEELING
Famously a brand new car loses a substantial amount of its value once it is driven from the showroom. A similar principle may well apply to motor yachts. This issue was considered by Mr Simon Salzedo QC (sitting as a…
PROVING THINGS 191: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS (III): CLAIMING AND PROVING “FRINGE BENEFITS”.
Some jobs have “fringe benefits” which provide an important part of the employee’s overall remuneration. There are many examples of these benefits being claimed as damages. Here we look at some cases where the courts have considered the issue of…
PROVING THINGS 168: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION:STATEMENTS OF OPINION OR BELIEF CARRY NO WEIGHT
The Court of Appeal judgment today in Irani v Duchon [2019] EWCA Civ 1846 adds to the Proving Things series in relation to a failure to establish key matters at trial (it also gives me an opportunity to promote the…
PROVING THINGS 147: CLAIM FOR NOT PURSUING NEGLIGENT SOLICITORS LEADS TO NOMINAL DAMAGES ONLY: NO DAMAGES FOR “LOSS OF CHANCE”
The judgment in Waraich & Anor v Ansari Solicitors (A firm) [2019] EWHC 1038 (Comm) HHJ Pearce also contains yet another example of claimants failing to prove any loss at trial. There was no evidence to support any claim for…
PROVING THINGS 146: NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO PROVE A LOSS, OR THAT THE DEFENDANT CAUSED ANY “LOSS” (THIS IS BECOMING A FAMILIAR STORY)
The number of people who are willing to commit to large scale, and expensive, litigation without having the basic evidence to prove their case on damages has proven to be a staple fare for this series. Another example is the…
PROVING THINGS 140: SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE A “LOSS OF CHANCE”
In Dymoke v Association for Dance Movement Pyschotherapy UK Ltd [2019] EWHC 94 (QB) Mr Justice Popplewell found that a claimant had not adduced sufficient evidence to prove a “loss of chance” in a claim for damages. This shows that a…
PROVING THINGS 130: BY THE TIME OF TRIAL YOU SHOULD REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE LOST: SOME OF THESE CLAIMANTS MAY HAVE SUFFERED NO LOSS AT ALL
The final paragraphs of the judgment in Anderson & Ors v Sense Network Ltd [2018] EWHC 2834 shows that some of the claimants in that case were unable to establish their losses. Indeed two of the claimants may have suffered no…
PROVING THINGS 120: PROVING DAMAGES: THE DANGERS OF NOT HAVING A CREDIBLE “FALL BACK” POSITION
In Moore & Anor v National Westminster Bank [2018] EWHC 1805 (TCC) Mr Justice Birss dismissed an appeal by the defendant against an award of £115,000 in damages. It is a case about the appropriate assessment of damages when the defendant…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 10: THE PROVING THING SERIES: SIZE DON’T SEEM TO MATTER…
This is the last in the series looking back at key series of posts on this blog over the past five years. Keen observers will note that most series last for about 10 posts. When the “Proving Thing” series started…
PROVING THINGS 114: A WITNESS OF FACT CANNOT GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANY LOSS
There are several elements worth looking at in the judgment in Wessely & Anor (Liquidators of Laishley Ltd) v White [2018] EWHC 1499 (Ch). However it is a prime example of a simple failure to prove things. If the applicants had…
PROVING THINGS 112: ITS NO USE JUST WAVING ACCOUNTANT’S REPORTS AROUND
In Berkshire Homes (Northern) Ltd v Newbury Venture Capital Ltd [2018] EWHC 938 (Ch) the respondent relied on accountant’s reports in an attempt to prove its case. The case shows that it is insufficient just to produce accounts. Evidence has to…
PROVING THINGS 1O2: FAILING TO PROVE CHANCE OF RECONCILIATION
A claimant in a fatal accident claim does not have to prove an entitlement to a dependency claim on the balance of probabilities. The court can, in appropriate cases, look at the case on the basis of loss of chance,…
PROVING THINGS 99: THE ROLE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS: TRIAL JUDGE COULD PREFER VIEWS OF OTHER EXPERT
The opinion of a single joint expert is not binding on the court. This is clear from the judgment of Mr Justice Turner today in HJ v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1227 (QB) “The opinion of a single…
PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY “WISHFUL THINKING”: £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)
The judgment of John Martin QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in London College of Business Ltd v Tareem Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 437 (Ch) is a prime example of a failure to prove damages. The claim was…
PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE
The decision of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in O’Neill -v- Bull & Bull* (Canterbury County Court 5th February 2018) is an almost classical example of the need to prove things. It also provides a warning to non-contentious lawyers on the…
PROVING THINGS 81: PROVING MITIGATION OF LOSS – AGAIN: FAILURE TO FIND WORK WAS NOT A FAILURE TO MITIGATE
We have looked at issues relating to proving mitigation of loss before*. The legal burden in establishing a failure to mitigate loss lies with the party asserting a failure to mitigate. This was made clear in the judgment of Mrs…
PROVING THINGS 76: A RECAP – I DIDN’T EXPECT TO GET THIS FAR…
Today saw the 75th in the series “proving things”. I never anticipated that the series would run so long, I initially planned around 10 posts. Now we have reached 75 (and with no plans to stop) this is an appropriate…
PROVING THINGS 75: PROVING CAUSATION ON AN UNDERTAKING TO PAY DAMAGES: THE INJUNCTION THAT COST THE APPLICANT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS: ROUND 2
We have looked before at the decision in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation -v- Yuri Privalov & others [2016]. An applicant for a freezing order was found to have obtained the order wrongly. Consequently they were ordered to pay damages that stretched…
PROVING THINGS 69: SOLICITORS EVIDENCE OF (THEIR OWN) LOSS “WHOLLY INADEQUATE”: IMPORTANT POINTS ABOUT DELAY TOO
This blog often reports on cases where a party fails to appreciate the scope and depth of evidence needed to prove a claim for damages. This issue arose in the judgment today in Hersi & Co Solicitors, R (On the Application…
PROVING THINGS 64 : ABSENCE OF STRONG AND STABLE EVIDENCE LEADS TO DAMAGES AWARD OF £2.00
There are several reasons litigators should read the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Jones -v- Oven [2017] EWHC 1647 (Ch). However this is another case where a claim for damages failed because the…
PROVING THINGS 60: PUTTING SEAWEED OUT OF THE WINDOW: THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND THE JUDGE WHO WAS EVEN-HANDEDLY OFFENSIVE:
The Court of Appeal judgment in McBride -v- UK Insurance Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 144 has been covered widely on the issue of the appropriate rate for car hire charges after an accident. However less widely discussed is the fact that,…
PROVING THINGS 59: TO GET SPECIAL DAMAGES YOU HAVE TO PLEAD THEM AND PROVE THEM (EVEN IN DEFAMATION CASES)
In Lisle-Mainwaring -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 543 (QB) Judge Parkes QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) declined to award the claimant special damages for financial outlay on the grounds that they were never properly…
PROVING THINGS 58 : FAILURE TO PROVE CAUSATION LEADS TO AWARD OF NOMINAL DAMAGES
For the third time in recent weeks I write about a case where a claimant has spent much time, energy (and no doubt money) in bringing an action but only recovered nominal damages. In Plantation Holdings (FZ) LLC -v- Dubai…
PROVING THINGS 46: LATE THEORIES ADVANCED BY EXPERTS RARELY HELP
Some aspects of litigation are highly reliant upon experts. Medical causation is on of those areas. The issues between experts should be clarified in the joint statement. In Smith -v- Tesco PLC & Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2016]…
PROVING THINGS 45: IF YOU CAN'T PROVE LOSS THE DEFENDANT IS GOING TO GET SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This series (and this blog) have looked at several cases where a party has asserted a loss but not been able to prove it. There are a large number of cases where a party fails to put the basic information…
PROVING THINGS 37: ROBIN HOOD RIDES AGAIN: AN APPROACH TO DAMAGES THAT WAS "FUNDAMENTALLY DEFICIENT THROUGHOUT"
I have written before about the decision in relation to the the decision in the liquidation in the Robin Hood Centre. In the judgment at first instance the Registrar held that the claim against former directors had been vastly over-stated…
PROVING THINGS 8: DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THAT FAILURE TO WEAR A SEATBELT MADE A DIFFERENCE
The defendant bears the burden not only of proving contributory negligence but also establishing its causative relevance. The law in Syred -v- Powszecnny Zaklad Ubezpieczen (PZU) SA [2016] EWHC 254 (QB) (Mr Justice Soole) was complex, however one key point…
IF YOU CAN'T PROVE IT YOU DON'T GET IT: CALLING EVIDENCE AT COURT TO PROVE A LOSS: A WORKING EXAMPLE
A party claiming damages must bring evidence to court to prove the losses it claims. This is a simple statement. However adducing evidence which actually proves the losses claimed often gives rise to difficulties in all spheres of litigation. The…
You must be logged in to post a comment.