Description
The solicitors advice as to the prospects of success on the construction of the territorial extent of a non-compete clause was while more optimistic than some more cautious solicitors might have given, within the range of opinions that could properly be given. There was no breach of duty in not advising explicitly that arbitrators might not agree with that construction. Similarly the advice as to the appropriate level of compensation under the agreement and that the initial offer did not reflect fair compensation was also acceptable. There was some fault in that the first letter of advice did not properly convey the intended advice and was reasonably understood by the clients as indicating an entitlement to more substantial damages than was likely and the second letter should have advised seeking damages as well as a declaration and warned of the risks of not obtaining a declaration. However even if the claimants had been given more pessimistic advice they would not have accepted an earlier offer or conducted settlement negotiations differently, there was therefore no proof of loss. Nominal damages only were awarded.
