[2005] EWCA Civ 775, 28 June 2005. Appeal by second appellant barrister (H) and cross-appeal by the respondents (G) against the assessment of damages given in ([2004] EWHC 1205 (Ch)) in respect of H's negligent advice. G owned 10 residential flats, of which they sought to gain vacant possession so as to re-let them as shorthold tenancies. H had given negligent advice in proceedings that led to long lease of two flats being granted. The judge assessed damages for the admitted negligence on the basis of diminution in value of the whole property calculated on an assumed sale in the open market acquired for retention and letting as an investment. H argued that the judge's post-negligence assessment should have been made on a vacant possession rather than an investment basis because G had retained the property. "Held": appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. H's approach departing from the conventional diminution approach could not be justified on the evidence. Any alternative approach had to be internally consistent. To compare a pre-negligence assessment based on market value with a post-negligence assessment based on another approach could not be right.