Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786
Breach of contract; loss of a chance to win competition; measure of damages
Facts
Hicks was a famous actor and theatre manager. He invited women to enter a beauty contest by sending in photographs which would be placed in a newspaper. The readers of the newspaper would vote for their winner, who would be awarded a paid engagement as her prize. Chaplin entered the competition and came first in her group thereby affording her the opportunity to be considered as a finalist. The letter inviting her to attend the next stage of the contest arrived too late, and as a result she was denied the opportunity to be considered. She sought damages.
Issues
Chaplin contended that Hicks’ failure to take reasonable steps to bring the next stage to her attention amounted to a breach of contract. This breach, she argued, had resulted in a lost opportunity for her to attain lucrative engagements and she was, therefore, entitled to damages to compensate her for this loss. Hicks argued that even if there had been a breach of contract, any damages awarded should be nominal because any harm Chaplin had suffered would be too remote from the breach and incalculable. It would not be possible to assess the chances of Chaplin winning the competition and her losses, if any, were incapable of assessment.
Decision/Outcome
Chaplin successfully recovered 100k in damages. Under the contract, she had the right to be considered within a limited class. Hicks’ breach of contract meant she could no longer be so considered. The loss of the chance of winning such a lucrative prize was a breach which afforded her the right to substantial, and not merely nominal damages. Such damages were not necessarily incapable of assessment.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786. The case remains good law and continues to be the leading authority for the proposition that damages for loss of a chance are recoverable in contract, provided the chance lost had a real or substantial (not merely speculative) value.
One factual point worth noting: the article states Chaplin recovered “100k in damages.” The actual award was £100 (one hundred pounds), which was a significant sum in 1911 but should not be read as £100,000. Students should be aware of this to avoid misunderstanding the figure.
The principle in Chaplin v Hicks has been consistently applied and developed in later cases. In tort, the House of Lords in Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2 considered loss of a chance in a clinical negligence context and declined to extend the principle beyond contract into personal injury claims for loss of a chance of a better medical outcome, which remains an important limitation to note. More recently, the Supreme Court in Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 reaffirmed that loss of a chance claims in contract (particularly in solicitors’ negligence) require the claimant to show on the balance of probabilities that they would have taken the relevant step, before the lost chance itself is valued. These developments do not undermine Chaplin v Hicks itself but are relevant to understanding how the principle operates today.
Overall, the article remains a reliable summary of this foundational case.
