Judge held ‘trial within a trial’ in compensation case

The Court of Appeal has ordered a former law firm to pay nearly £15,000 for negligent advice to a former miner.

Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 concerned Frank Perry’s claim for damages against his former solicitors, Raleys, on the basis that the firm’s admitted negligence in his compensation claim for vibration white finger against his employer caused him to settle his claim at too low a value. Perry filed a claim under the Department for Trade and Industry’s (DTI) tariff-based compensation scheme, which was administered through an agreement with firms of solicitors, including Raleys.

He later sued Raleys for not pursuing a ‘services’ claim on his behalf, but was unsuccessful at trial even though Raleys, having first mounted a strenuous defence, subsequently admitted negligence.

On appeal, his lawyers argued that the judge had conducted a ‘trial within a trial’ as to whether Perry would be able to carry out the tasks listed under the scheme, such as grass-cutting, normal household repairs or car maintenance, which determined whether someone should receive the extra compensation.

Granting Perry’s appeal, Lady Justice Gloster held: ‘In my judgment, the judge was wholly wrong, both as a matter of principle and in the particular circumstances of this case, to have engaged in the kind of factual determination which he did as to whether, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Perry could have brought an “honest” services claim.

‘In reality the judge carried out a determination on the balance of probabilities as to whether Mr Perry would have succeeded in his services claim against the DTI.’