Hamze v Bradstreet

The appeal concerned a claim for damages for alleged professional negligence brought by the plaintiff, Mr Hamze, against the defendant, Bradstreet, a firm of solicitors. Mr Hamze alleged that the solicitors had provided negligent advice regarding his rights to pursue a common law claim for damages for personal injury sustained in the course of his employment. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr Hamze had lost the opportunity to pursue a common law claim due to the solicitors' alleged negligence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that Mr Hamze had not established causation. Specifically, the court had to determine whether Mr Hamze would have elected to pursue a common law claim for damages for his injuries had he received proper advice from his solicitors. This involved assessing the hypothetical decision-making process of Mr Hamze at the time he would have received correct advice.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that Mr Hamze had failed to prove causation. The trial judge had been unpersuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Hamze would have elected to sue at common law for his injuries, even if he had been properly advised of his alternative rights. The court applied the principles of causation in negligence, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that the negligent act or omission caused the loss complained of. In this instance, the loss was the inability to pursue a common law claim, and the court found that the hypothetical decision to do so had not been sufficiently established.

The appeal was dismissed, and Mr Hamze was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.