Description
The Claimant pursued a claim under the DTI compensation scheme for compensation for exposure to vibration and for vibration white finger. His claim included a claim for loss of services. On advice from his solicitors he abandoned that claim. He subsequently brought a claim for professional negligence in respect of that advice. The lower court found that the advice was negligent and awarded damages on the basis of a loss of a chance of a further recovery from the DTI scheme. On appeal the judge's finding of a causal connection was upheld and the appellant was refused permission to amend its grounds of appeal to argue a point of law on the basis that the approach in
Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors of not having a trial within a trial on causation is more appropriate to cases where the underlying claim has been struck out and a fair trial is no longer possible.
