The claimant appealed against his damages award, saying that it should have allowed for the anticipated rises in the cost of providing his care in the future.
Held: Rises in future costs were already factored into the tables used for settlements. Attempts to show that rises would be more substantial trended to undermine that system, and should be resisted by the courts. Attempts to separate out such costs were nothing but ‘smoke and mirrors’. At a political level, the discount rate might be reset, but at a judicial level it could not be.
Judges:
Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Carnwath
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1370, Times 24-Oct-2003, Gazette 13-Nov-2003
Statutes:
Damages Act 1996 1(1), Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001 (2001 No 201)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wells v Wells; Thomas v Brighton Health Authority; etc HL 16-Jul-1998
In each of three cases, the plaintiffs had suffered serious injury. They complained that the court had made a substantial reduction of their damages award for loss of future earnings and the costs of future care.
Held: The appeals succeeded. . .
Cited – Cookson v Knowles HL 24-May-1978
The House described the approach to the calculation of damages for a dependency under the Fatal Accidents Acts.
Held: The multipliers in Fatal Accidents Act cases should be calculated from the date of death.
Sections 3 and 4 mark a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Personal Injury
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.187001
