Francis v Bostock: 8 Nov 1985

The court considered the question of whether the court should award the additional costs of receiving investment advice to deal with an award of damages: ‘The award I make is compensatory. The whole object of the exercise upon which I have embarked by the progress of multipliers and multiplicands is to achieve a figure which compensates the plaintiff one and for all. The calculation of that figure, so far as future economic loss is concerned, seeks to achieve such a sum as will enable the plaintiff to recover her annual economic loss for the rest of her life, whilst in the process dissipating the fund. The result is what should be achieved by the award itself. Having acknowledged that the proposition however, the Court is not concerned with the disposal of the award once it is made. The plaintiff may spend it as she wishes. The defendant, in my judgment, should not be called upon to find further monies to assist the plaintiff in the proper administration of an award which, in itself, affords adequate compensation. Furthermore in my view the employment of financial advisers and the like is a consequence of my award and not a consequence of negligence of the defendant. The claim fails on the ground of remoteness.’
Russell J
Unreported, November 8 1985
England and Wales
Cited by:
Not FollowedAnderson v Davis QBD 1993
The court referred to the judgment in Francis -v- Bostock: ‘That judgment of Russell J., as he then was, has been followed in other cases and it is with some trepidation that I decided not to follow it here, for the following reasons. First, in a . .
CitedEagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.200635