Leitch v Reynolds

The appeal concerned a claim by the plaintiff, Mr Leitch, against his former solicitors, Reynolds, for negligence. Mr Leitch alleged that the solicitors' failure to pursue his cause of action for failed surgical treatment against his medical professionals resulted in the limitation period being exceeded. Further delays meant that an application to extend the limitation period was also unsuccessful. Mr Leitch sought damages for the loss of the benefit of his original cause of action.

The central legal issues before the court were the assessment of damages. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the measure of damages should have accounted for the fact that x-rays, said to be indispensable to the success of the original medical negligence action, were no longer available. The court was required to consider whether a discount to the value of the lost cause of action, to reflect the reduced prospects of success due to the missing x-rays, should have been greater than the 55% applied by the primary judge. The assessment of damages for economic loss and for vexation and distress also fell for consideration.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's decision. The reasoning focused on the appropriate assessment of damages in a situation where a plaintiff has lost the opportunity to pursue a claim due to their solicitor's negligence. The court applied principles relating to the measure of damages for loss of a chance, considering the impact of the unavailability of crucial evidence (the x-rays) on the prospects of success of the original claim. The court found that the discount applied by the primary judge adequately reflected the diminished prospects of success and that the damages awarded for economic loss and for vexation and distress were appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.