Where a defendant is responsible for the loss of an opportunity that would otherwise have been open to the claimant, it is well established that the possibility that nothing might have come from the opportunity anyway, does not rule out a claim for substantial damages. Not surprisingly, the amount is arrived at by adjusting the value of the hoped-for prize so as to reflect the value of the chance (now lost) of going for it.
An interesting illustration of this jury-style exercise can be found in Abraxas Computer Services Ltd v Rabin Leacock Lipman (a firm) [2000] EGCS 70, where the defendant solicitor did not dispute that it was liable for a failure to take steps that were essential to the statutory renewal of the claimant’s business tenancy. The court was satisfied that if nothing had gone amiss, the claimant would have been able to seek alternative premises at leisure. As things turned out, there was a rush to find new accommodation and a corresponding lack of bargaining power when dealing with the prospective landlord.
On the evidence before the court, damages were assessed on the basis that, if all had gone well, the claimant would have had a 35% chance of agreeing a rent halfway between that obtainable from a rival bidder and that which he was virtually obliged to pay.
Very much a decision on the facts, but a useful, addition to any tariff relating to such awards.
Where a defendant is responsible for the loss of an opportunity that would otherwise have been open to the claimant, it is well established that the possibility that nothing might have come from the opportunity anyway, does not rule out a claim for substantial damages. Not surprisingly, the amount is arrived at by adjusting the value of the hoped-for prize so as to reflect the value of the chance (now lost) of going for it.
An interesting illustration of this jury-style exercise can be found in Abraxas Computer Services Ltd v Rabin Leacock Lipman (a firm) [2000] EGCS 70, where the defendant solicitor did not dispute that it was liable for a failure to take steps that were essential to the statutory renewal of the claimant’s business tenancy. The court was satisfied that if nothing had gone amiss, the claimant would have been able to seek alternative premises at leisure. As things turned out, there was a rush to find new accommodation and a corresponding lack of bargaining power when dealing with the prospective landlord.
On the evidence before the court, damages were assessed on the basis that, if all had gone well, the claimant would have had a 35% chance of agreeing a rent halfway between that obtainable from a rival bidder and that which he was virtually obliged to pay.
Very much a decision on the facts, but a useful, addition to any tariff relating to such awards.
