Site icon swarb.co.uk

Heil v Rankin, Rees v Mabco (102) Ltd, Schofield v Saunders and Taylor Ltd and Other cases: CA 23 Mar 2000

The Law Commission had recommended that the general level of damages awarded for pain suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases should be raised. The Court now considered several cases on the issue.
Held: The court would do so. Awards above pounds 10,000 should be raised on a sliding scale to a one third proportion in the most severe cases. No change in principle was involved. It was proper for the Court of Appeal to respond to such a report provided it confined its answer to provision of tariffs. The old awards had become out of line with what society as a whole would consider reasonable.

Lord Woolf MR, Beldam, Otton, May LJJ, Nelson J
Times 24-Mar-2000, Gazette 06-Apr-2000, [2000] 2 WLR 1173, [2000] EWCA Civ 84, [2000] 3 All ER 138, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 203, [2000] IRLR 334, [2000] PIQR Q187, [2001] QB 272
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAndrews v Grand and Toy Alberta Ltd 1978
(Supreme Court of Canada) The injured plaintiff sought damages for future loss of earnings and for the cost of future care.
Held: Dickson J said: ‘It is clear that a plaintiff cannot recover for the expense of providing for basic necessities . .
CitedWright v British Railways Board HL 1983
An award of interest at a conventional rate includes an element in respect of the ‘real’ rate of return which an investor could expect to receive on a risk-free investment and an element to allow for inflation. Lord Diplock said: ‘that element of . .
CitedWells 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. . .
CitedShephard v H West and Son Ltd HL 27-May-1963
The House looked at how personal injury damages shoud be set in cases of severe injury.
Lord Pearce said: ‘[i]f a plaintiff has lost a leg, the court approaches the matter on the basis that he has suffered a serious physical deprivation no . .
CitedJohn v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .

Cited by:
CitedKiam v MGN Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably . .
CitedRahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust CA 15-Jun-2000
The claimant had suffered a vicious physical assault from which the claimant’s employers should have protected him, and an incompetently performed surgical operation. Three psychiatrists agreed that the aetiology of the claimant’s very severe . .
CitedGeorge Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly . .
See AlsoHeil v Rankin CA 13-Jun-2000
Where supervening events might contribute to the personal injury suffered, the proper approach in apportioning compensation in respect of one occasion was in general terms to provide just and sufficient compensation for the injury caused without . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Personal Injury, Damages

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.135768

Exit mobile version