 They sued Mothew for the sum they lent (£59,000) less the proceeds of the sale.Mothew argued that Bristol and West had been aware of the second charge and even if it had not known, it would still have proceeded with the transaction and suffered the same loss, because in 1988 when the transaction was going through, the market was buoyant and the extent of the borrower's overdraft facility was commonplace.This would mean no damages would be recoverable at common law, for there would be no causal connection with Mothew's (alleged) negligence and the building society's loss.