Mappouras v Waldrons Solicitors

For a contractual claim against solicitors, an admitted breach of retainer is not defeated solely because the claimant cannot prove financial loss. Contract differs from tort: breach may justify judgment for the claimant and nominal damages. On an application for permission to appeal, an arguable error on that point can justify permission even if substantial damages remain doubtful. An alternative question about statutory appealability may be left unresolved.

Mr Mappouras claimed that Waldrons Solicitors had negligently breached their retainer by failing to pursue an appeal against a suspended possession order. Waldrons admitted negligence and breach of retainer. The Walsall County Court dismissed the claim because no loss had been proved, relying on the alleged unavailability of the earlier appeal and, alternatively, on the absence of recoverable loss under the pleaded heads of damage. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether that dismissal was arguably wrong because the contractual claim could succeed with an award of nominal damages.

1. Application allowed. Lord Justice Mantell granted permission to appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Rundell dismissing the claim.
2. Liability had been admitted on the pleadings. The solicitors accepted that they had been negligent and had breached their retainer by failing to follow instructions to initiate an appeal.
3. The judge arguably erred in dismissing the contractual claim merely because the applicant had failed to prove financial loss. A negligence claim in tort requires proof of damage, but a claim for breach of contract does not. On the judge’s findings, the appropriate order could have been judgment for the claimant with nominal damages.
4. The Court expressed doubt about the judge’s view that the earlier appeal was unavailable under section 77 (6) of the County Court Act 1984 together with section 84 (2) (a) of the Housing Act 1985. That statutory issue was left unresolved because permission was granted on the contractual nominal-damages ground only.
5. The applicant was warned that pursuing the appeal might not be in his interests, since he could face difficulty proving entitlement to more than nominal damages and there could be costs consequences. The appeal was to be heard by two Lord Justices.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 19 March 2002, permission to appeal was granted on the ground that the contractual claim was arguably wrongly dismissed. [2002] EWCA Civ 504
2. Walsall County Court: His Honour Judge Rundell dismissed the claim on 10 December 2001, finding that no recoverable loss had been proved.