London and Manchester firm Leigh Day has been refused summary judgment in a professional negligence case after a judge said the firm was asking for lightning to strike twice.

Claimant Dorne Mitchell instructed the firm to pursue damages for the ‘wrongful birth of her profoundly disabled daughter’ in the United Arab Emirates. She sought damages of £26m, including interest.

The claim was struck out after the claim form was not served on time by 10 December 2016. Following the strike-out, Mitchell sought damages for losses allegedly caused by professional negligence. 

Leigh Day denies all allegations. It argued ‘irreparable damage’ had occurred to the underlying claim in October 2016 and, in any event it was statute-barred. Mitchell said time started to run on 10 December 2016 when the firm failed to serve the claim form before it expired.

Master Stevens, in Dorne Mitchell v Leigh Day (a firm), said: ‘It is often said colloquially that lightning does not strike twice. I am asked by the [firm], through this application, and in the interests of justice, to trigger that second lightning bolt against the claimant and enter summary/reverse judgment on her claim.

‘The claim is for damages for losses allegedly caused by the professional negligence of the claimant’s former solicitors in allowing her high value clinical negligence claim to be struck out for failure to serve the claim form within the limitation period. By this application, the defendant now urges that I “grasp the nettle” without a trial, as to whether the claim is in fact already time barred.’

Read more

The judge said it was ‘plain’ from Mitchell’s particulars of claim that ‘each separate breach is not an allegation of damage being caused to the claim at the time of breach; they are allegations of sub-standard professional conduct’.

She added: ‘Anyone who has worked in a solicitors’ office will be aware that standards may on occasion be breached, but the situation can be totally salvaged, such that no damage is caused. My interpretation of the particulars is that it builds a picture of serial failures but the actual damage is pleaded as caused at the expiry of the extension deadline when the situation is no longer fixable and thus damage occurs.’

Refusing to make summary judgment, the judge said: ‘I have not found there to be settled law that can be readily applied to the facts of this case, such that the claimant has no realistic prospect of success or other compelling reason for the matter to proceed to trial.’

A trial is listed for October 2025.