[2005] EWHC 972 (Ch), 20 May 2005. Considers whether the diminution in value rule ("Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co" [1880] 5 App. Cas. 24) used in assessing the appropriate measure of damage for loss, could be departed from if the facts demonstrated that its application would be unjust to a claimant. Claimant investor (K) sought damages for professional negligence and alternatively breach of contract from the defendant firm of solicitors (E). E accepted its liability for K's losses following E's negligent legal advice in the purchase of a commercial property for investment. K, who purchased the property for income purposes, submitted that damages recoverable under the diminution of value rule would be substantially less than the total rent loss and accumulated interest and that another more just method of assessment should be used. "Held": judgment for the claimant. The assessment of damages was ultimately a factual exercise to compensate a claimant for a civil wrong and legal rules might have to give way to the facts of a case. In this case the diminution of value rule should not be applied in assessing the damages as it would, following the case's facts, be unjust to K.