Written by Professional negligence · contract claims · litigants in person
Suing a professional can feel daunting, especially without legal representation. For litigants in person, the practical task is to identify the duty, prove breach, causation and loss, check limitation, and prepare the evidence with discipline.
Publication snapshot
- This article explains the basic elements of professional negligence and related contract claims.
- It focuses on practical preparation for litigants in person: duty, breach, causation, loss, limitation and insurance.
- It identifies key authorities and statutory limitation points referred to in the source draft.
Understanding the basics: what is professional negligence?
For many people, the idea of suing a professional — whether a solicitor, surveyor or accountant — can seem daunting. Yet, as the courts in England and Wales continue to clarify the law, individuals representing themselves as litigants in person can approach these complex claims with greater structure.
Professional negligence occurs when a professional fails to perform their duties to the standard expected, causing financial loss. Contract claims, meanwhile, arise when a professional fails to deliver what was agreed in a contract.
Both types of claim share common ground, but the legal route chosen can affect prospects of success, the damages recoverable and the time available to bring the case.
The legal framework: what has changed?
The law in this area is shaped by longstanding principles and recent court decisions. The source draft identifies two 2025 cases as sharpening the focus for claimants.
Insurance coverage
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Amtrust Specialty Ltd v Endurance Worldwide Insurance Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 755 is described as clarifying how professional indemnity insurance policies are interpreted, especially what is and is not covered.
Insurer liability
The High Court’s ruling in Roger Leggett & 40 Others v American International Group UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 278 (Comm) is described as addressing how and when insurers must pay out on professional negligence claims.
Those cases sit alongside established authorities such as Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20, which remains central to understanding the “scope of duty” owed by professionals and the recoverability of loss.
Step-by-step: bringing your claim
Identify the duty and the breach
You must show that the professional owed you a duty of care, whether under contract or in tort, that they breached that duty, and that you suffered loss as a result. The courts will look closely at the contract or retainer letter, the nature of the advice or service, and whether the loss suffered was the kind the professional was supposed to protect against.
Prove causation and loss
Not every mistake leads to compensation. You must prove that the professional’s error caused your loss and that the loss falls within the scope of duty, as clarified by Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20. If the loss would have happened anyway, the claim is likely to fail.
Check the limitation periods
Time is critical. Most claims must be brought within six years of the breach or loss under the Limitation Act 1980. If the damage was not immediately obvious, there may be three years from the date of knowledge, but there is a strict 15-year longstop. Missing these deadlines usually means the claim cannot proceed.
Consider professional indemnity insurance
Most professionals are required to carry insurance. The recent Amtrust Specialty Ltd and Roger Leggett cases highlight that whether an insurer will pay depends on the exact wording of the policy and the timing of the claim. If the professional is insolvent, it may be possible to claim directly against their insurer, but insurers should be expected to scrutinise the detail.
Prepare your case
Gather all relevant documents: contracts, emails, advice and evidence of loss. If settlement is not possible, you will need to issue a claim form and set out the case clearly, including the duty owed, the breach, how it caused loss, and why the loss is recoverable.
Practical tips for litigants in person
Build the claim carefully
- Clearly identify the professional’s duty and how it was breached.
- Focus on losses directly linked to the breach and within the professional’s scope of duty.
- Keep contracts, retainers, advice, emails and loss evidence in one organised bundle.
Control the risk
- Diarise limitation dates and do not delay.
- Investigate insurance if the professional cannot pay.
- Seek legal advice where limitation, insurance, expert evidence or claim value make the case complex.
The bottom line
The law on professional negligence and contract claims continues to develop, with recent cases providing further clarity, especially on insurance and the scope of recoverable losses. For litigants in person, understanding these developments is important.
With careful preparation, attention to limitation, and a disciplined approach to evidence and loss, individuals can navigate the process and seek redress where professionals fall short.
Video
Disclaimer
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts, evidence, limitation position and procedural context. If in doubt, seek professional legal assistance.
Thank you for this article, I have only ascertained the gist of the story as my knowledge of my mental health impairment disabilities prevent me from reading in full due to concentration issues and triggering impairments. Via Open Letter (i.e. released to press, but response awaiting) to my MP and a Regional Employment Judge of yesterday (18/12/2025). I thought it appropriate to inform of the 13 questions that I have asked my MP to table to the Minister for answering my Secretary of State for Justice. Not only is JCIO dismissing misconduct complaint by misconstruction of a Judicial Conduct Rule, there is a conflict of interest when Judges are Crown Servants and Respondent is government department.
Q1. What assessment has been made of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s interpretation of
Rule 23(c) of the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.
Q2. Is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s interpretation of Rule 23(c) consistent with its
statutory remit.
Q3. What publicly available authority, rule, guidance, or other source supports the Judicial Conduct
Investigations Office’s position that misconduct is limited to judges’ personal behaviour.
Q4. If the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s interpretation of Rule 23(c) of the Judicial Conduct
Rules 2023 is consistent with its statutory remit, what steps will be taken to assure consistency across guidance and rules.
Q5. Whether the Government will legislate to make the Equal Treatment Bench Book a mandatory
standard in Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 proceedings.
Q6. Whether the Government will amend tribunal procedure rules to make the Equal Treatment
Bench Book a mandatory standard in Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 proceedings.
Q7. How many disability discrimination claims have been struck out by the Employment Tribunal or
Employment Appeal Tribunal between 1 December 2023 and 30 November 2025 on the basis that
the tribunal considered the evidence insufficient to establish that a claimant was unfit to attend a
hearing.
Q8. Under what statutory or procedural authority Employment Tribunal judges may determine that
evidence is insufficient to establish that a claimant with a mental health disability is unfit to attend a
hearing.
Q9. What safeguards exist to ensure that determinations about the fitness of claimants with mental
health disabilities to attend hearings respect the principle that such individuals manage their own
conditions and lifestyle.
Q10. What safeguards exist to ensure that determinations about the fitness of claimants with mental
health disabilities to attend hearings are not based on judicial or medical assumptions about
capability.
Q11. What mechanisms are available to Parliament to validate that judges are acting impartially and
independently in accordance with the Lord Chancellor’s duty under the Constitutional Reform Act
2005.
Q12. What steps are being taken to remove conflicts of interest in Employment Tribunal and
Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings where the respondent is a government department and
the judges are also servants of the Crown.
Q13. What steps are being taken to mitigate conflicts of interest in Employment Tribunal and
Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings where the respondent is a government department and
the judges are also servants of the Crown
My other observation is that Government, Parliament and Judicial Office Holders are exploiting Foucalt overarching principle that“ Power and knowledge directly imply one another.” — Discipline and Punish (1975) Michel Foucault (1926–1984) was a French philosopher and historian best known for analyzing how power and knowledge intertwine to shape society.
Footnotes
1. Illusory Truth Effect – Repetition of a statement increases its perceived truth, even when false. See: Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). “Frequency and the conference of referential validity.” *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 16(1), 107–112.
2. Learned Helplessness – When repeated failure or uncontrollable events lead individuals to stop trying. See: Seligman, M.E.P. (1972). “Learned helplessness.” *Annual Review of Medicine*, 23, 407–412.
3. Epistemic Injustice – When someone’s testimony is discredited due to prejudice or identity. See: Fricker, M. (2007). *Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing.* Oxford University Press.
4. Cognitive Dissonance – Psychological discomfort from holding contradictory beliefs, leading to rationalisation. See: Festinger, L. (1957). *A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.* Stanford University Press.e