Settlement Advice and the Limits of Professional Negligence: Fassone v Hugh James (a firm) [2026] EWHC 364 (KB)

March 10, 2026

The High Court has dismissed a professional negligence claim arising out of settlement advice in historic abuse litigation in Fassone v Hugh James (a firm) [2026] EWHC 364 (KB).

The Claimant alleged that his Solicitors negligently advised him to accept a £10,000 settlement of a claim said to be worth in excess of £600,000. The allegations centred on the failure to obtain counsel’s advice and psychiatric expert evidence before advising settlement.

Mrs Justice Foster rejected the claim in its entirety. The judgment contains a careful re-statement of orthodox principles governing litigation negligence claims and provides a useful reminder of the difficulty of impugning settlement advice with the benefit of hindsight.

The Legal Framework of Professional Negligence

The court began with the familiar statement of the Solicitor’s duty of care. The standard is that of the reasonably competent practitioner, as established by Oliver J in Midland Bank v Hett Stubbs and Kemp [1979] Ch. 384:

“The test is what the reasonably competent practitioner would do having regards to the standards normally adopted in his profession.” (§106)

However, particular caution is required where the alleged negligence concerns litigation judgment, especially settlement advice. Citing Griffin v Kingsmill [2001] EWCA Civ 934, the court emphasised the limited circumstances in which such advice can be challenged:

“Unless the advice was blatantly wrong, i.e. such as no competent and experienced practitioner would give it, it cannot be impugned and the prospects of successfully doing so would seem very slight.” (§107)

The authorities recognise that settlement requires the exercise of a difficult professional judgment, and courts must guard against hindsight.

Expert Evidence Before Settlement

A central allegation was that competent Solicitors would have obtained psychiatric expert evidence before advising the Claimant to settle.

The Claimant advanced a broad proposition that where medical issues arise in personal injury litigation, expert evidence will generally be required before settlement can properly be advised.

The court rejected that submission. The decision whether to obtain expert evidence is itself a matter of professional judgment:

“Each case falls to be assessed on its own facts and merits and at the time… It is a matter of broad judgement when, indeed whether, a medical report is required.” (§126)

The judge also rejected the premise that Solicitors are incapable of assessing medical material without expert assistance:

“Reading and understanding medical material is entirely within the compass of an experienced specialist Solicitor.” (§127)

On the facts, the Solicitors had identified substantial obstacles to the claim at an early stage, including jurisdiction, limitation and vicarious liability. In those circumstances the absence of expert psychiatric evidence did not render the settlement advice negligent.

Counsel’s Advice

The Claimant also alleged negligence in the failure to instruct counsel before settlement.

That allegation failed for a straightforward reason. It was not pleaded that counsel would in fact have advised differently. The court held that the Claimant’s case on this issue was speculative and, in any event, a reasonably competent Solicitor could properly have concluded that the claim had poor prospects of establishing vicarious liability.

Settlement Advice

The judgment illustrates the high threshold that must be crossed before settlement advice can be characterised as negligent.

The Solicitors had consistently advised that the claim faced significant legal difficulties and that expectations of substantial damages were unrealistic. The Claimant was warned about the risk of under-settlement and accepted the advice.

The court rejected the suggestion that the Claimant had been pressured into settlement, describing the allegation that money had been “dangled” before him as a mischaracterisation. The contemporaneous materials demonstrated that the Claimant understood the position and the risks.

Causation

Even if breach had been established, the claim faced substantial causation problems.

The court was not persuaded that the Claimant would have pursued the litigation further if different advice had been given. Funding difficulties alone made that improbable. Nor was there any real prospect that the claim would have achieved a materially better outcome.

The conclusion was therefore straightforward:

“Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed. There is no basis on which it can be said the defendant breached its duty to Mr Fassone… or that with different advice, Mr Fassone would have obtained any better outcome.” (§153)

Practical Implications

The decision provides several practical reminders for practitioners conducting both personal injury and professional negligence litigation.

1. Expert evidence is not invariably required before settlement

The judgment rejects any rigid rule that medical expert evidence must be obtained before advising settlement in personal injury claims. The decision is a matter of professional judgment informed by the evidential landscape and the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying case.

2. Settlement advice remains extremely difficult to challenge

Courts continue to emphasise the evaluative and discretionary nature of settlement decisions. Advice will only be negligent if it falls outside the range of reasonable professional opinion.

3. Careful explanation of litigation risk remains essential

The defendant firm had clearly identified the legal obstacles facing the claim and warned of the risk of under-settlement. The contemporaneous correspondence proved central in demonstrating that the Claimant understood the advice.

4. Causation will often be decisive

Even if breach is arguable, Claimants must show that different advice would probably (rather than possibly) have produced a better outcome. In litigation-based negligence claims that counterfactual exercise frequently proves insurmountable for Claimants.

Comment

Fassone is a useful reminder that claims based on allegedly negligent settlement advice remain among the most difficult to establish.

Litigation decisions are often taken under conditions of uncertainty and imperfect information, with many known-unknowns. Unless the advice given falls outside the bounds of reasonable professional judgment, the courts will be slow to revisit such decisions with the advantage of hindsight.

Back to News