Report comment

Interesting this because if a Defendant who claims not to be liable for 100% is say offered 10% of the claim against them and then the claim gets struck out because of CPR default, does this mean that if the client sues the solicitor or Barrister it can be argued that they would never have won because they would never have got over the 10% even though the judgement they got against them was for the full 100%.

What is the most current position on loss of opportunity?

For example, A goes to B Solicitors who then get a very good offer of 10% of liability (including costs) to conclude, offered to A.

A turns this down. B then has the case struck out through failure to comply with an unless order (but on very technical grounds).

B cannot act. A then tries to sue B. Is there an argument that A would never have got a better result than the 10%, and should have settled for that figure?

The insurers for B then pay A the 10% to settle the liability that the Claimants always wanted as they are prepared to settle for that original figure even though the case has been struck out and the larger 100% awarded in default (and remove the CCJ from the Central Registry Trust).

If so should B be liable and should A be the one who pays as they didn't settle for the original 10% before strike out or should B and /or B's insurers suffer?

Just wondered. Wha tis the latest on this. Can anyone enlighten me?