Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons

341 words (1 pages) Case Summary

21st Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 4 All ER 907

Solicitor failure to advise on protection clause; causation; quantification of losses


Allied Maples Group (AMG) instructed Simmons & Simmons (S&S) to act in a takeover of the Gillow group of companies. S&S failed to advise AMG of certain potential liabilities arising under leases forming part of the transaction. No warranty against such liabilities were obtained. The transaction completed and the risk materialised, leaving AMG liable for substantial sums. AMG brought an action to recover damages from S&S for their negligent advice.


S&S argued there was no duty to investigate the potential liability under the leases, and even if they had been in breach of duty, their failure to do so had not been causative of AMG’s losses. Even if they had been advised of these potential liabilities, AMG could not establish on a balance of probabilities that Gillow would have provided indemnity. Further, even if they had been advised of the liabilities, AMG would have proceeded with the transaction on the same terms in any event. AMG argued that but for the negligent failure to advise them of the risk of liability, they would have entered into negotiations with Gillow regarding the provision of an indemnity against such losses. This lost opportunity to enter negotiations and/or obtain other such protection from liability caused them significant losses which were caused by S&S’ failure to appropriately advise.


AMG were successful in their claim. Where the quantification of losses depended on an assessment of future uncertain events, the court had to assess the likelihood of the risk materialising. AMG were entitled to succeed because they established there was a real and substantial chance, and not merely a speculative one, that Gillow would have afforded an indemnity but for S&S’ omission.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles