The claimant had been awarded substantial damages for injuries received in a road traffic accident. He had been able to work in a reduced capacity, but claimed he would need assistance. The appeal alleged that the judge had wrongly allowed for the fact that the claimant would be living in the US, that the claim for support was unsustained on the evidence, and the wrong multiplier had been used, not allowing for a medium term rehabilitations. The first appeal ground was not made out from the judgment. The assessment that the claimant would need longer term care was reasoned and based upon the evidence. Though these matters remain one of impression, the judge’s assessment of the multiplier needed adjustment, from 22 to 17.
Judges:
Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Dyson, And, Mr. Justice Harrison
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 19
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Goldfinch v Scannell 1993
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Personal Injury
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167470