header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 July 2019 / Richard Samuel
Issue: 7847 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Damages
printer mail-detail

Reflective loss reconsidered (Pt 1)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

In a special two-part NLJ series, Richard Samuel considers the history & likely future of the court’s rulings on shareholder action & reflective loss
  • The Supreme Court is due to review the rule on reflective loss this year in Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd.
  • The orthodox view is that the rule as currently formulated in the House of Lords’ decision Johnson v Gore Wood is an inflexible rule of law..
  • Richard Samuel offers a heterodox view of Johnson as affirming the rule as one of procedure, which should be applied flexibly.

In Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) [1982] Ch 204, [1982] 1 All ER 354 at pp222H–223B, the Court of Appeal first established the rule on reflective loss as a means of imposing structure on out-of-control first instance litigation brought by a company’s shareholders as a combination of derivative action and direct action: ‘In our judgment the personal claim is misconceived … what [the shareholder] cannot do is to recover damages merely because

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll