Judge finds advice fell within reasonable professional judgment and causation not established
The High Court has dismissed a professional negligence claim against claimant firm Hugh James concerning advice to accept a £10,000 settlement in historic child abuse litigation, ruling that the solicitors acted within the range of reasonable professional judgment and that causation was not established. The decision clarifies the evidential hurdles facing claimants who seek to challenge settlement advice.
Mrs Justice Foster said the case had to be assessed “without the benefit of hindsight”, emphasising that decisions on investigation and settlement involve professional evaluation in the context of risk, proportionality and available evidence. She rejected the contention that competent solicitors were required, on the facts, to obtain counsel’s advice or psychiatric expert evidence before recommending compromise.
The practical impact is that the claimant recovered nothing and faces the usual adverse costs order. For practitioners, the ruling provides reassurance that proportionate preparation and risk-based settlement advice will not be negligent simply because a claimant later alleges undervaluation.
The claimant alleged he suffered physical and sexual abuse while attending Fort Augustus Abbey School in Scotland between 1983 and 1987. In 2018 he instructed the defendant to pursue a claim against the English Benedictine Congregation.
From the outset, the solicitors identified significant litigation risks, including limitation, jurisdiction, vicarious liability and causation. They reviewed available records and inquiry material and entered negotiations before proceedings were issued. A Part 36 counter-offer of £10,000 was accepted in September 2018.
The claimant later alleged that competent representation would have achieved a settlement of around £650,000. The negligence claim focused on three alleged failures: not instructing counsel, not obtaining psychiatric evidence, and not properly advising on earnings and pension loss.
He argued these omissions led him to accept a substantial undervalue settlement. The defendant denied breach, maintaining its advice reflected reasonable professional judgment given the uncertainties and evidential gaps.
The judge preferred the defendant’s case. She found the firm had undertaken sufficient investigation to advise on settlement and was entitled to conclude that further steps would be disproportionate given the risks. Settlement valuation, she noted, is “an evaluative exercise, not a precise calculation”.
On causation, the claimant failed to prove that additional work would probably have produced a materially better outcome or that he had lost a real and substantial chance of doing so. Assertions relating to earnings and pension loss were also rejected on the evidence.
The claim was dismissed in full with costs, underlining the difficulty of succeeding in professional negligence claims arising from settlement advice in complex historic abuse litigation.