My Law Tutor

Chaplin v Hicks – 1911

March 04, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Introduction to Chaplin v Hicks – 1911

Chaplin v Hicks (1911) stands as a landmark case in English contract law, expanding the scope of recoverable damages for breach of contract. The case dealt with the right to compensation for a “lost chance”, a novel concept at the time, arising from a film director’s failure to inform an aspiring actress about a crucial change in a competition’s selection process.


Eva Chaplin, a budding actress, entered film director Herbert Hicks’ competition for a lead role in an upcoming film. The initial stages involved submitting photographs and competing in regional heats. Chaplin excelled, reaching the final 50 out of 500 entrants. The competition then shifted to public voting, but due to a miscommunication and late delivery of a notification letter, Chaplin missed the crucial announcement about the voting process and was ineligible to participate.

Procedural History

Feeling aggrieved, Chaplin sued Hicks for breach of contract, claiming that his failure to properly inform her about the change in selection rules had deprived her of a valuable opportunity to win the role and advance her career. The initial trial found in Chaplin’s favor, awarding her £100 in damages. However, Hicks appealed, arguing that the awarded damages were too remote and speculative, as Chaplin’s chances of winning the competition were uncertain.


Chaplin argued that Hicks’ breach directly resulted in her losing the chance to compete in the public voting stage, diminishing her potential career advancements. She emphasized the value of the opportunity offered by the competition, pointing to the significant film contract and recognition associated with the lead role.

Hicks, on the other hand, contested the remoteness of the damages awarded. He argued that Chaplin’s success within the initial stages did not guarantee her victory in the public voting, making her claimed loss entirely speculative. He emphasized the unpredictable nature of public voting and the presence of other talented contestants.

Legal Analysis

The Court of Appeal, in a groundbreaking decision, upheld Chaplin’s right to claim damages for the lost opportunity. Lord Cozens-Hardy, delivering the judgment, acknowledged the challenges in valuing lost chances but distinguished between “remote” and “not too remote” damages. He established that where a contract guarantees an opportunity, even if its ultimate success is uncertain, a breach causing its loss can lead to recoverable damages.

The court acknowledged the inherent uncertainties in Chaplin’s chances of winning the competition. However, they emphasized that Hicks’ breach directly denied her the right to compete and potentially benefit from the public voting process. The court, therefore, deemed the £100 award as reasonable compensation for the lost opportunity.

Impact and Implications

Chaplin v Hicks had a profound impact on English contract law, creating a framework for awarding damages for lost chances. The case recognized the potential value of such opportunities and affirmed the legal responsibility of parties to uphold contractual obligations related to competition and fair participation. This led to the development of the “Chaplin principle”, expanding the scope of recoverable damages beyond direct financial losses to encompass lost opportunities and intangible benefits.

However, the case also sparked debate about the potential for speculative claims and the challenges in accurately valuing lost chances. Critics argued that its application could lead to uncertainty and increased litigation. Nonetheless, Chaplin v Hicks remains a vital precedent, influencing contemporary legal approaches to breach of contract damages and offering a nuanced understanding of the value of opportunities within contractual agreements.


Chaplin v Hicks stands as a testament to the evolving nature of contract law in its recognition of the value of lost opportunities. The case expanded the scope of recoverable damages and emphasized the importance of fair conduct within competitive processes. While ongoing discussions analyze its limitations and potential for abuse, Chaplin v Hicks remains a significant legal milestone, offering a framework for compensating the loss of a chance and upholding the expectations of opportunity created by contractual agreements.

Why Choose Us:

Delve into a realm where legal intricacies unfold seamlessly, offering a sophisticated blend of convenience and excellence. Whether you aspire to enter the legal profession or harbor a passion for jurisprudence, our best law courses online beckon with accessible brilliance. Elevate your understanding of the law from the comfort of your space, where each module is a masterclass in clarity. Join us to redefine your legal acumen, embracing the pinnacle of online legal education tailored for discerning learners. Enroll now and let the journey to legal mastery commence.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Chaplin v Hicks – 1911' (, ) <> accessed 24 July 2024
My, Law, Tutor. ( ). Chaplin v Hicks – 1911. Retrieved from
"Chaplin v Hicks – 1911." . All Answers Ltd. 07 2024 <>.
"Chaplin v Hicks – 1911." MyLawTutor., . Web. 24 July 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. . Chaplin v Hicks – 1911. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 24 July 2024].
MyLawTutor. Chaplin v Hicks – 1911 [Internet]. . [Accessed 24 July 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Chaplin v Hicks – 1911 | |date= |accessdate=24 July 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

UK Law . Last modified: December 28, 2023

Introduction to Lloyds Bank v Rosset: The case of Lloyds Bank v Rosset holds immense importance in the realm of property law. It revolves around the critical concept of beneficial interests in properties and shapes how courts interpret ownership rights in property disputes. This case is pivotal as it provides guidance on understanding the rights […]

R v Ghosh – 1982

UK Law . Last modified: July 10, 2024

 Introduction to R v Ghosh: R v Ghosh (1982) stands as a seminal case within the annals of criminal law, its significance reverberating through legal precedents and judicial interpretation. This case study aims to dissect its intricacies, delving into its background, procedural history, legal analysis, and lasting impact. Background At its core, R v […]

R v Dawson – 1985

UK Law . Last modified: March 26, 2024

Introduction to R v Dawson – 1985 R v Dawson (1985) stands as a significant landmark case in criminal law, examining the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the limits of lawful protest. This case study delves into the legal intricacies of R v Dawson, exploring the parties involved and the central legal issue […]

R v Pagett – 1983

UK Law . Last modified: February 26, 2024

Introduction to R v Pagett – 1983: The case of R v Pagett (1983) marks a significant juncture in the legal landscape, unraveling the intricacies of self-defense within the confines of criminal law. This landmark trial involved the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as the prosecution and David Pagett as the defendant, sparking debates that would […]

Duty of Care Test in Caparo v Dickman

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Caparo v Dickman Caparo Industries plc v Dickman is a significant case that shaped negligence law in the United Kingdom. This legal dispute involved Caparo Industries, an investment company, suing its auditors, Dickman, for alleged negligence. The core of this case was establishing the existence of a duty of care between Caparo Industries […]

Aslan v Murphy (No 1)

UK Law . Last modified: June 10, 2024

Introduction to Aslan v Murphy (No 1) In the heart of English land law lies the landmark case of Aslan v Murphy (No 1). Decided in 1989 by the Court of Appeal, this case grappled with a fundamental question: does Mr. Aslan’s occupation of a cramped basement room amount to a protected tenancy under the […]

go to top