Solicitor – Negligence. The correct approach to the law of causation in professional negligence cases was that, to the extent (if at all) that the question whether the client would have been better off depended on what the client would have done on receipt of competent advice, that had to be proved by the client the balance of probabilities. To the extent that the supposed beneficial outcome depended on what others would have done, that depended on a loss of chance evaluation. The Supreme Court so ruled concerning an appeal by a firm of solicitors against the Court of Appeal, Civil Division's decision in favour of the respondent retired miner, who had brought a professional negligence claim against the solicitors. At first instance, the judge had ruled against the respondent on causation and had dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court held that, contrary to the Court of Appeal's view, the judge's determination of the case had not been vitiated by any error of law or fact. It had not been wrong in law or in principle for the judge to have conducted a trial of the question whether the respondent would (or could) have brought an honest claim for a services award, if he had been given competent advice by the solicitors. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the judge's order was restored.