Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Practice Areas
Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter
You were told the outcome wasn’t guaranteed. That your case might have succeeded. That your investment could have recovered. And somewhere along the way, someone suggested that because nothing was certain, there’s nothing to claim.
That’s wrong — and it’s one of the most misunderstood areas of compensation law in Australia.
A lost chance is a real loss. If a professional’s negligence stripped you of a genuine opportunity — a legal case with real prospects, a financial position that could have been protected, a business window that was open before bad advice closed it — you may be entitled to compensation for exactly that. Not a guaranteed outcome. The chance itself.
Loss of opportunity compensation — sometimes called loss of chance damages — is awarded when professional negligence has deprived you of a real and valuable prospect of a better outcome. Courts do not require you to prove the outcome would definitely have been better. They assess the realistic probability that it would have been, and compensate you proportionally for that lost chance.
This is a legally recognised head of damages in Australian professional negligence law. It is not a fallback or a consolation. It is a distinct, compensable loss — and in legal and financial negligence claims, it is regularly litigated and regularly awarded.
The doctrine applies most commonly — and most powerfully — in legal and financial professional negligence. Here are the situations where it arises most often.
Your solicitor let a valid claim expire
Your lawyer missed the limitation period. Your underlying claim — whether for a personal injury, a contract dispute, or a property matter — was struck out before it could be heard. You may not have won. But you had a real, arguable case with genuine prospects. That prospect had value. The negligence destroyed it. That destroyed value is compensable.
A settlement offer was never put to you
Your financial advisor failed to act in time
Your accountant missed a statutory window
In each of these situations, the common thread is the same: a real chance at a better outcome, destroyed by negligence. Not a certain outcome. A real one.
Courts do not flip between winning everything and getting nothing when the outcome was uncertain. They use a proportional probability approach — one that the High Court has endorsed and applied across a series of landmark decisions.
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332
The High Court confirmed that loss of a commercial or legal opportunity can ground a damages award where the chance lost was real — not speculative, not fanciful, but genuinely available before negligence extinguished it. Once the chance is established, courts assess what would have happened on the balance of probabilities and quantify the award accordingly.
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Established that future and hypothetical events — including what would have happened had the professional performed their duty — are assessed on the basis of probability, not the strict balance of probabilities standard that applies to past facts.
Practical example: Suppose your solicitor’s negligence destroyed a legal claim valued at $400,000. Expert evidence establishes the claim had a 35% realistic chance of success. The loss of chance award for that component may be approximately $140,000 — with other heads of loss assessed separately on top.
The figure is not arbitrary. Courts look at the strength of the underlying position, the quality of available evidence, what competent representation would have achieved, and what range of outcomes were realistically available. The process is rigorous. But it is designed to put a fair value on something that has a fair value.
Four elements need to be present. They mirror the standard professional negligence framework, but causation and loss have specific application here.
Duty of care
The professional owed you a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in their work. For lawyers, financial advisors, accountants, and engineers, this duty exists as a matter of course.
Breach
They fell below the standard expected of a competent practitioner in that field. Missing a limitation period, failing to communicate a settlement offer, neglecting to act on a known risk — all of these can constitute a breach.
Causation
Their negligence caused you to lose a real and identifiable opportunity. There must be a direct connection between what they failed to do and the chance that was destroyed. A chance that was already gone before the negligence doesn’t count. A chance that was genuinely open does.
Loss
The chance had real, quantifiable value. It was not speculative or fanciful. Courts will not compensate a chance that was so remote as to be negligible — but a real chance, even a 20% or 30% probability, is compensable.
If these elements are present in your situation, your claim may have genuine merit — regardless of whether you can prove the outcome would definitely have been better.
This distinction matters and it is worth being clear about it.
Following the High Court’s decision in Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537, loss of chance is generally not available as a standalone head of damages for physical injury in medical negligence claims in Australia. The Court held that negligence in a personal injury context must be established on the balance of probabilities in the conventional way.
This does not affect loss of opportunity claims in legal negligence, financial advice negligence, accounting negligence, or commercial professional negligence more broadly. In those contexts, the doctrine is alive, well, and regularly applied.
If you are unsure which category your situation falls into, that is exactly what a free case evaluation is for.
Loss of opportunity is one of several heads of loss that may be available to you. Depending on the nature and extent of the negligence, your total compensation may include a combination of the following.
The direct financial loss caused by the negligence itself — the most common head in professional negligence matters.
Consequential financial losses
Downstream losses that flowed from the professional’s failure — costs, penalties, lost opportunities that cascaded from the original breach.
Compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, where a physical or psychological impact has been established.
Fees paid for negligent advice or services that delivered no benefit — money spent that achieved nothing of value.
Where the negligence has affected your ongoing earning capacity, future losses can be claimed and quantified.
In most Australian states, professional negligence claims must be commenced within three years of the date you became aware — or should reasonably have become aware — of the negligence. Limitation periods vary by state and by the nature of your claim. Missing the deadline can permanently extinguish your right to claim, including any loss of opportunity damages you would otherwise have been entitled to pursue.
If you are uncertain whether your time is still open, do not wait. Contact our team for a free assessment as soon as possible.
You don’t need certainty about the outcome to have a claim worth pursuing. What matters is whether the chance was real — and whether negligence took it from you.
Our specialist professional negligence lawyers assess loss of opportunity claims across Australia on a no-win, no-fee basis. If there is a viable claim, we will tell you honestly. If there isn’t, we will tell you that too.
Yes — both terms refer to the same legal concept and are used interchangeably in Australian courts and commentary. Both describe compensation for the deprivation of a real and valuable prospect that was destroyed by a professional’s negligence.
Yes — and this is precisely the point. The law does not require you to prove on the balance of probabilities that the better outcome would have occurred. You need to establish that the chance was real and that the negligence extinguished it. Courts then assess and award damages proportional to the realistic value of that lost chance.
In Australian law, following Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537, loss of chance is generally not available as a standalone damages head for physical injury in medical negligence. It remains available in legal negligence, financial advice negligence, and commercial professional negligence contexts. If your situation involves financial or legal harm arising from a medical professional’s advice — rather than a physical injury — it is worth discussing with a specialist.
There is no fixed formula. Courts assess the realistic probability of the lost chance succeeding and apply that probability to the value of the opportunity. A 40% chance at a $300,000 outcome may produce approximately $120,000 in loss of chance damages, subject to all other heads of loss and applicable deductions. The evaluation is fact-specific.
Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Sign up to our newsletter