Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Damages - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 80 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Bordin v St Mary's NHS Trust [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 287)
2000
QBD
Crane J
Damages
The claimant's mother had died as a result of the negligence of the respondent. Held: The calculation of past and future dependancy should refer to the care whether paid or unpaid actually provide or expected to be provided by the deceased. What would be the cost of replacing the mother's care. Authority suggested the cost of employing a nanny even if one had not in fact been employed, but the court must be careful not to over compensate. Travel costs either for a nanny or for travel to and from the nanny were properly included if reasonable.
Fatal Accidents Act 1976
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Firth v George Ackroyd Junior Ltd [2000] Lloyds Med Rep 313
2000


Personal Injury, Damages

1 Citers


 
Allison v KPMG Peat Marwick [2000] 1 NZLR 560
2000

Thomas J
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice, Damages
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) If one tortfeasor settles the victim's claim by paying him a sum which fully satisfies his right to damages for loss and injury, the victim cannot then sue any concurrent tortfeasor for damages for the same loss and injury. Thomas J said: "Satisfaction discharges the loss. It is in the nature of an executed judgment in its effect. The loss no longer exists. There is nothing left for anyone to sue on; the injury or loss has been satisfied. As between the parties there is no problem. Where the co-defendants are concurrent tortfeasors, however, concurrently liable on a different cause of action, the satisfaction of one obligation cannot in itself discharge the other obligation. The concurrent tortfeasor will be released only if the satisfaction satisfies the injury or loss which flows from his or her separate cause of action. Its extinction is then independent of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Simply put, no injury or loss exists on which to sue."
1 Citers


 
Parry v Noth West Surrey Health Authority Times, 05 January 2000
5 Jan 2000
QBD

Damages
Where judgment was awarded with damages to be assessed, and interim payments were made to the claimant pending the determination of the damages, the interest which would have accrued to the claimant on the payments received was not to be set off against the interest to be awarded later on the assessment and payment of the final award.


 
 Skipton Building Society v Bratley and another; CA 12-Jan-2000 - Times, 12 January 2000
 
Margaret Patricia Briody v St Helens and Knowlsey Heath Authority Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 01 March 2000; [2000] EWHC QB 178
21 Jan 2000
QBD
The Hon. Mrs Justice Ebsworth Dbe
Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Damages
The claimant having become unable to have children through the negligence of the Authority, claimed in damages the cost of arranging a paid surrogacy arrangement abroad. Such arrangements here were void and unenforceable, and it would be against public policy to award them. In this case, the chances of success were also still very small. Such a claim, properly made might be recoverable under other circumstances.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zoan v Rouamba [2000] EWCA Civ 8; [2001] 1 WLR 1509
21 Jan 2000
CA
Henry, Chadwick, May LJJ
Damages, Road Traffic, Negligence
Appeal against award of damages for hire of vehicle by claimant after road traffic collision.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Balmoral Group Ltd v Rae; EAT 25-Jan-2000 - Times, 25 January 2000
 
Bouette v Rose Times, 01 February 2000; Gazette, 10 February 2000
1 Feb 2000
CA

Wills and Probate, Damages
A mother who had given up work to stay at home and care for her daughter who had been awarded substantial damages for injury, was capable of being dependent upon her daughter when that daughter died. She was accordingly a person who could make a claim against the daughters estate under the Act. The daughter's resources had contributed substantially to the mothers living expenses, that had not been for valuable consideration, and she had, even if through the Court of Protection, assumed some responsibility for her mother's upkeep.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

 
Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Times, 16 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 39
10 Feb 2000
CA

Damages, Torts - Other, Police
Misfeasance in public office was not a tort in which exemplary damages would be available before 1964, and, following the restriction on such awards in Rookes v Barnard was not now a tort for which such damages night be payable. Kindred torts, which might normally accompany such a claim against the police, might give rise to such a claim however.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dickinson (T/a John Dickinson Equipment Finance) v Rushmer (T/a F J Associates) [2000] EWCA Civ 42
14 Feb 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited; HL 17-Feb-2000 - Times, 15 August 2000; Gazette, 05 October 2000; [2000] UKHL 43; [2000] 4 All ER 97; [2000] 3 WLR 946; [2001] 1 AC 518
 
Pegler Ltd v Wang (Uk) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 137; 1997 TCC No 219
25 Feb 2000
TCC
Bowsher QC J
Contract, Damages
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages. Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or two of its standard terms and conditions, the remaining conditions were incorporated wholesale into the contract and therefore the contract fell within s3 of the 1977 Act. It was unreasonable to impose the standard terms on Pegler, who had no choice but to accept them. The exclusion of liability clauses relied on by Wang are unenforceable. As to damages, Pegler had failed to keep records of the time taken to deal with the issues which arose. The court considered in detail and at length the different heads of recovery including for lost management time. Rectification was awarded and damages assessed.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
T G Harris v The Post Office (Royal Mail) EAT/171/99
25 Feb 2000
EAT
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton
Discrimination, Damages
EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to Feelings
The applicant, a homosexual, was humiliated at work by his fellow employees, and management failed to deal with his complaint. He succeeded in his claim for unfair dismissal oin the basis that the employer's behaviour amounted to constructive dismissal. The employer also did not contest the allegation that the behaviour amounted to sex discrimination since such behaviour would not have been tolerated toward a woman. The remaining issue was as to damages, awarded at £11,000. Held: The award, applying Johnson, was if anything more generous than might be awarded in a pesonal injury case, even allowing any element of aggravated damages. The calculation of special damages may have been open to criticism, but had arrived at a proper figure. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites



 
 Caballero v United Kingdom; ECHR 29-Feb-2000 - Times, 29 February 2000; (2000) 30 EHRR 643; 32819/96; [2000] ECHR 52; [2000] ECHR 53
 
Howkins and Harrison (A Firm) v Tyler and Another Gazette, 09 March 2000
9 Mar 2000
ChD

Damages, Professional Negligence
Having paid out £400,000 to a lender as damages for a negligent survey valuation after default in repayments by the defendant, the claimant sought to recover the payment from the defendant under the Act. The application was refused. The Act could only operate for a claim for the same damage. What was lost by the lender from the default was not the same. Compensation was not the same as recovery of a debt, and the claimant could not claim a subrogation for the lender.
Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 1(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Herbert Broderick Times, 22 March 2000; [2002] 1 AC 371; [2000] UKPC 11; (Appeal No 68 of 1998)
20 Mar 2000
PC

Damages
(Jamaica) Damage had been caused to the claimant's property, but, because of his lack of funds, he was dependent upon the receipt of the damages to carry out the works of repair necessary. By the time the matter came to trial, inflation meant that the cost had quadrupled. Held: The right level of damages payable was the cost at the time when he became able to carry out the work. The general rule that damages were to be assessed as at the date of the breach, was subject to exceptions, including particularly where it would cause injustice. The duty to mitigate his damages was overridden by his impecuniosity.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Jenmain Builders and Others v Steed and Steed (A Firm) Gazette, 30 March 2000; 2000 BNLR 616
20 Mar 2000
CA
Chadwick LJ
Professional Negligence, Land, Damages
The defendant firm of solicitors acted on the sale of property, but failed to notify a purchaser that he was in a contract race and that another contract had been sent out. The claimant would have been able to exchange, and to have acquired the property. Held: The defendants had failed to follow their own professional rules and were liable, even though in this case the damages were minimal in the absence of any proof of loss of profits.
Chadwick LJ said:- "This was a property with development potential. It is common ground that this property was no longer to be used as a village hall. It would have to be used for some other purpose; and there would have to be some development so that it could be used for that purpose. The question was: for what development could planning permission be obtained and how valuable would the property be on completion of that development? But those are the factors which a properly informed market will take into account in fixing the market value of property. The profit potential of the property is an element to be taken into account in fixing its market value. It is not suggested that there was anything special about this property to the appellants as purchasers. It is not suggested that there were not other developers in the market for property of this nature who could have made a proper assessment of the value of this property. The problem for the appellants in the present case is that they never sought to persuade the judge - and never adduced evidence to establish - that the market value of this property, Dukes Hall, was anything greater than the £67,500 which the Parish Council was seeking. It is for those reasons that the claim for loss of profits is one which the court could not entertain in this case. . . In the present case, there is no evidence that these appellants would not have been able to purchase other property in the market which they could develop profitably with the use of the money which they did not lay out in the purchase of Dukes Hall. There is no evidence that the respondents, insofar as their duty lay in contract, were aware of any special circumstances which made it impossible for the respondents to employ their funds in the ordinary course of their business, or of any circumstances which suggested that this property was being sold at an under-value. Indeed, in the circumstances that they were acting for the vendors, the Parish Council, it would be most unlikely that they would regard the property as being sold at an under- value rather than at market price".
1 Citers


 
Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd Times, 30 March 2000; [2000] PIQR Q263
22 Mar 2000
QBD
Latham J
Personal Injury, Damages
After a delay of delay 5 years, the judge deducted two years interest from the award to reflect the plaintiff's delay.
Damages Act 1996
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Heil, Rees and Another, Schofield, Ramsay, Kent, Warren, Annable, Connolly v Rankin and Anr, Mabco (102) Ltd, Saunders and Taylor Ltd, Rivers, Griffith and Ors, Northern General Hospital Nhs Trust, Southern Derbyshire Health Authority, Tasker Times, 24 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000; [2000] 2 WLR 1173; [2000] EWCA Civ 84; [2000] 3 All ER 138
23 Mar 2000
CA

Constitutional, Personal Injury, Damages
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 would do so. Awards above £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.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ball v Banner and Others; Neill Clark (A Firm) v Healey and Baker (A Firm) Gazette, 23 March 2000; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 569
23 Mar 2000
ChD
Hart J
Professional Negligence, Damages
A valuer had described expected values for an property proposed as an investment promoted by a co-defendant. The valuation and prediction as to how long it might take to have it let had contributed to the representations leading to the investments being made and the assessments had been made without any effective degree of analysis or care, and the company was responsible to make a contribution of one quarter. The contribution was properly claimed since it was four square with the original claim. The "damage in question" meant the loss suffered by the investors from entering into the transaction. Sections 2 (3) (a) and (b) made it "clear that persons may be liable in respect of the same damage without necessarily being liable in the same amounts".
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1 2(3)
1 Citers


 
Royston Frederick Williams v BOC Gases Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 95; [2000] ICR 1181
29 Mar 2000
CA
Brooke LJ, Thorpe LJ
Employment, Personal Injury, Damages
The plaintiff claimed damages from his employer in respect of injuries suffered during the course of his employment. The defendant paid the claimant a sum to which he had no contractual entitlement, saying that it was to be treated as an advance against any damages that he might be awarded against the defendant. The money came from the defendant's own fund. Held: "In my judgment, the judge was over-influenced by the decision of this court in McCamley which should be treated, until it receives the consideration of the House of Lords, as a case turning on its own particular facts: in other words, for what members of that court, deciding the issue as a jury question, thought was just, reasonable and in accordance with public policy on the facts of that case." and "The "benevolence" exception is limited in terms to gifts arising from the benevolence of third parties, and does not cover benevolent gifts made by the wrongdoer himself, for which allowance ought prima facie to be made against any compensation he might have to pay. Neither of the justifications for the benevolence exception apply to the tortfeasor. Deductibility will encourage him to make benevolent payments in future to injured employees, rather than the reverse. And it certainly cannot be said that in making the gift, his intention was to benefit the plaintiff rather than to relieve himself of liability pro tanto: he would have been happy to achieve both purposes at once. A fortiori in a case in which he said in terms, at the time he made the gift, that it was to be treated as an advance against any damages he might have to pay."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bhattacharjee v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council; LT 30-Mar-2000 - [2000] EWLands ACQ_10_1999
 
Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd Times, 31 March 2000; [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 387
31 Mar 2000
QBD
Stuart-Smith LJ
Contract, Torts - Other, Damages
In a contract for the purchase of airplanes, the plaintiff claimed misrepresentation, and as a result, rescission and damages. The issue was whether, once the right to rescind had been lost, any claim for damages had also lapsed under section 2(2). Held: The power to award damages was properly an alternative to rescission, which a judge could award where he felt that it was a more equitable solution. As an alternative, it fell with the claim for rescission.
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Plant Construction Plc v Clive Adams Associates, JMH Construction Services (2); TCC 31-Mar-2000 - 1996 ORB 750

 
 Van Oudenhoven v Griffin Inns Ltd; CA 4-Apr-2000 - Times, 10 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 102; [2000] All ER (D) 463
 
Luke Warren v Northern General Hospital Trust [2000] EWCA Civ 100
4 Apr 2000
CA
Stuart-Smith, Mummery, Tukey LJJ
Personal Injury, Damages
The court was asked "whether the court should alter the discount rate, set by the House of Lords in Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345 (judgment delivered on 16 July 1998), at 3%, and if so to what new rate. A further question also arises whether the impact of taxation on the fund is such that, even if the general rate is not altered, it should be in this case. The facts"
[ Bailii ]

 
 Van Oudenhoven v Griffin Inns Ltd; CA 4-Apr-2000 - Times, 10 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 102; [2000] All ER (D) 463
 
Kuliarchar Sweater Industries Ltd v Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd [2000] EWHC 194 (Comm)
4 Apr 2000
ComC
Langley J
Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Farley v Skinner Times, 14 April 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 109
6 Apr 2000
CA

Damages, Environment, Contract
A surveyor was engaged to report on a property, and was specifically requested to advise on the levels of aircraft noise from a nearby airport which might affect the property. He failed to report on the proximity of a navigation beacon. Held: He was not liable for damages for the non-physical damage for discomfort and disturbance which ensued. For such damages to be awardable, the contract had one for the purposes of provision of leisure, relaxation or peace of mind.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wisely v John Fulton Plumbers Ltd (Scotland) and Wadey v Surrey County Council; HL 6-Apr-2000 - Times, 07 April 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000; [2000] UKHL 24; [2000] 1 WLR 820
 
Holtby v Brigham and Cowan (Hull) Ltd Times, 12 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 111; [2000] 3 All ER 421
6 Apr 2000
CA
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Clarke
Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Damages
A claimant who sought damages for injuries suffered by the ingestion of asbestos whilst working for one employer, but had also worked for other periods for other employers where similar activities had been involved, had the onus in the claim to prove causation. It might be impossible to apportion the damage exactly, but he must demonstrate a substantial contribution from the defendant. Having been found responsible in this way, the employer would be responsible only to the extent of his contribution to the asbestosis. Each tortfeasor should be responsible only for the proportion which its exposure contributed to the damage.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Neil Knapman v Keith Charman [2000] EWCA Civ 115
6 Apr 2000
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Warren v Northern General Hospital Trust Times, 10 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000
10 Apr 2000
CA

Damages
It was not open to lower courts to reduce the guideline discount interest rate applied to damages awards to account for future returns. The original figure was set in the Act and by the House of Lords in Wells v Wells. Also the lower rates of interest currently applying are not sufficiently different to justify a change in the rate, and any change must await an order from the Lord Chancellor.
Damages Act 1996
1 Cites


 
Smee v Byron Brian Adye [2000] EWCA Civ 146
19 Apr 2000
CA
Stuart-Smith, Robert Walker, Laws LJJ
Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Slack v Glenie and others [2000] EWCA Civ 145
19 Apr 2000
CA

Damages, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Adcock v Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd Times, 26 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 117
26 Apr 2000
CA
Waller LJ, Sir Christopher Slade
Damages
The claimant claimed under his fire insurance with the defendants. He sought damages for their delay in processing the claim. Held: The power to award interest on damages is discretionary. The judge had refused to allow interest, at a rate which applied at different times following the damage. He could do so, because of the claimant's delay. However the court should also look at the fact that the defendant in this case had set aside sums for the payment of damages in this action, and that such a reduction in interest rates might also lead to a windfall, or an unjust enrichment of the defendant. Whilst the judge had not been entirely correct, his discretion was not to be interfered with.
Supreme Court Act 1981 35A
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rolls Royce Ltd and another v Heavylift-Volga Dnepr Ltd and another Gazette, 28 April 2000; Times, 26 April 2000
26 Apr 2000
QBD

Transport, Damages
There is no effective difference between the words 'aerodrome' and 'airport'. One is merely an old-fashioned version of the other. Where goods were damaged when the carriers storage agents sought to lift them. By that time, the carriage of the goods by air had begun, and the Warsaw convention applied with the effect of limiting the damages to be awarded.
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

 
ICTS (UK) Ltd, B Tchoula v B Tchoula, ICTS (UK) Ltd EAT/1108/99; EAT/1107/99; [2000] IRLR 643
4 May 2000
EAT
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
Discrimination, Damages, Employment
EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to Feelings
EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ EATn ]
 
Casey v Morane Limited Gazette, 25 May 2000; Times, 10 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 147
5 May 2000
CA

Damages, Personal Injury, Health and Safety
An employee suffered injuries at work for which he was adjudged 15% responsible and the company 85%. Because of the accident he was demoted and suffered loss of earnings. He claimed that loss of earnings in his action for damages. The court found that the company should pay the damages. The company was itself predominantly responsible for the damage caused, and these losses flowed directly from the accident.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Dimond v Lovell; HL 12-May-2000 - Gazette, 31 May 2000; Times, 12 May 2000; [2000] UKHL 27; [2000] 2 All ER 897; [2000] 2 WLR 1121; [2002] 1 AC 384; 2000 Rep LR 62; [2000] CCLR 57; [2000] RTR 243

 
 Western Digital Corporation; Western Digital (Singapore) Ltd and Western Digital Netherlands and British Airways Plc; CA 12-May-2000 - Times, 28 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 153

 
 Applied Implants Technology Ltd and Others v Lufthansa Cargo Ag and Others; CA 17-May-2000 - Times, 17 May 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000
 
Heaton and others v AXA Equity and Law Life Assurance Society Plc and Another Times, 07 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 164
19 May 2000
CA

Damages, Litigation Practice
Where a claimant had settled one claim with one of two joint tortfeasors on an issue which also concerned the action against the second, it was a matter for interpretation of that settlement as to whether or not the claimant could continue the action against the remaining defendant. In such an action where the claimant had received full compensation the defendant in the second action could seek a contribution from the defendant in the first.
Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Robert Mark Gordon v J B Wheatley and Co (a Firm) Times, 06 June 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 173; [2000] Lloyds LR PN 605
24 May 2000
CA
Kennedy LJ, Kay LJ
Damages, Limitation, Financial Services, Professional Negligence
The defendant solicitors had negligently advised the claimant in connection with a mortgage scheme he operated for customers. His case was that the defendants had negligently failed to advise him to register under s3 of the 1986 Act. The claimant had to underwrite his customers' losses because of his failure to register. The SIB began its investigation into the claimant's business less than six years before he brought his action against the defendants, and its obligation compensate arose within the limitation period. However, his claim against the defendants was held to be time-barred, because the claimant had first suffered actionable loss, and therefore his cause of action had accrued, when the first customer entered into the mortgage scheme. He claimed that ". . . actual loss is not the same as a serious risk of loss, and … that until at the earliest the claimant signed the Deed of Undertaking and Indemnity (which was within the six year period) there was no more than a serious risk of loss." Held: Kennedy LJ put the argument: "Forster's case there was immediate damage to a discernible asset, the plaintiff's equity of redemption, not merely a risk of damage to her assets as a whole." and rejected those submissions relyining on Milton -v- Walker & Stanger. "… it is necessary to identify the loss claimed, and to measure it against the duty allegedly breached. Here the breach of duty relied upon is an alleged failure to advise the claimant how to operate in such a way as not to be likely to attract adverse criticism for the SIB, in consequence of which negligence vulnerable transactions were made which were all completed before the beginning of the six year period, and before the SIB began to investigate."
Financial Services Act 1986 3 - Limitation Act 1980
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Robertson Or Macey-Lillie v Lanarkshire Health Board &C; OHCS 26-May-2000 - Times, 28 June 2000; [2000] ScotCS 136
 
Cesky v The Czech Republic [2000] ECHR 213; 33644/96; [2000] ECHR 214
6 Jun 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Damages
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
The applicant claimed the equivalent of £5660 for four years' lost earnings, on the basis of average earnings in the Czech Republic between 1993 and 1997.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Johnston v W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd Times, 07 June 2000
7 Jun 2000
IHCS

Damages, Construction
The cost of employing an architect to draw up a schedule of defects under a building contract was not recoverable as damages. The rights under this contract required remediation of the defects discovered and listed, and did not envisage other expenses.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Another (No 5); QBD 8-Jun-2000 - Times, 31 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000
 
Heil v Rankin Times, 20 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 187; [2001] QB 272; [2001] PIQR Q3
13 Jun 2000
CA
Otton LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
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 being excessive. There is no general or universal logical basis for rules in these situations. The possibility of hypothetical future injury should not be given any excess weight in assessing future losses of earnings.
Otton LJ observed that in Jobling, Lord Keith "was clear that the rule that he formulated, of ignoring the occurrence of a second tort when awarding damages against a first tortfeasor, could not be justified on any identifiable juristic basis, but rather was a just and practical solution to avoid the barrier to full compensation that would arise if the normal rules were applied to their full extent".
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust [2001] QB 351; [2000] EWCA Civ 190; (2001) 62 BMLR 84; [2000] 3 WLR 1184
15 Jun 2000
CA
Schiemann LJ, Laws LJ, Henry LJ
Damages, Negligence
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 psychiatric disabilities was complex and that different elements of his mental troubles could be attributed to the two separate tortious incidents. Held: The court considered the relationship between the damage caused and the duty in negligence.
Laws LJ said: 'Once it is recognised that the first principle is that every tortfeasor should compensate the injured claimant in respect of that loss and damage for which he should justly be held responsible, the metaphysics of causation can be kept in their proper place: of themselves they offered in any event no hope of a solution of the problems which confront the courts in this and other areas.
So in all these cases, the real question is, what is the damage for which the defendant under consideration should be held responsible. The nature of his duty (here, in the common law duty of care) is relevant; causation, certainly, will be relevant - but it will fall to be viewed, and in truth can only be understood, in light of the answer to the question: from what kind of harm was it the defendant's duty to guard the claimant? . . Novus actus interveniens, the eggshell skull, and (in the case of multiple torts) the concept of concurrent tortfeasors are all no more and no less than tools or mechanisms which the law has developed to articulate in practice the extent of any liable defendant's responsibility for the loss and damage which the claimant has suffered.' In this case there was nothing in the way of a sensible finding that while the second defendants obviously (and exclusively) caused the right eye blindness, thereafter each tort had its part to play in the claimant's suffering.
Laws LJ considered the logical impossibility of apportioning the damage among different tortfeasors, and said: "The reason for the rule that each concurrent tortfeasor is liable to compensate for the whole of the damage is not hard to find. In any such case, the claimant cannot prove that either tortfeasor singly caused the damage, or caused any particular part or portion of the damage. Accordingly his claim would fall to be dismissed, for want of proof of causation. But that would be the plainest injustice; hence the rule. However, the rule was a potential source of another injustice. A defendant against whom judgment had been given, under the rule, for the whole of the claimant's damages had at common law no cause of action against his fellow concurrent tortfeasor to recover any part of what he had to pay under the judgment; so that the second tortfeasor, if for whatever reason he was not sued by the claimant, might escape scot free. Hence the Act of 1978 and its predecessor the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935. It provides a right of contribution between concurrent tortfeasors. The expression 'same damage' in s.1(1) therefore means (and means only) the kind of single indivisible injury as arises at common law in a case of concurrent torts."
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1(1) 2(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ballantine v Newalls Insulation Co Ltd Times, 22 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000
22 Jun 2000
CA

Damages, Personal Injury, Benefits
The purpose of the rules was to provide statutory compensation for the pneumoconiosis suffered in this injury. Where therefore that person received damages for the same injury, the benefits received were to be deducted from the damages before payment.
Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers Compensation) Act 1979

 
Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council Times, 27 June 2000; Gazette, 13 July 2000; [2000] UKHL 70; [2000] 3 All ER 289; [2000] EG 80; [2000] NPC 71; [2000] 2 EGLR 5; [2000] BLGR 547; (2001) 81 P & CR 9; [2001] 2 AC 1; [2000] 3 WLR 165; [2000] RVR 235
22 Jun 2000
HL
Lord Steyn Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nolan Lord Hoffmann Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Land, Damages
The compensation which was payable for disturbance, when works were carried out on land acquired compulsorily, did not extend to the damage caused by noise dust and vibration arising from the works. Where however damage could be brought within the section, it did not cease to be recoverable because the interruption was only temporary. Lord Hoffmann said: "the term 'injuriously affected', connotes 'injuria' that is to say, damage which would have been wrongful but for the protection afforded by statutory powers … In practice this means that a claimant has to show that but for the statute he would have had an action for damages for public or private nuisance." Lord Hoffmann summarised the claim for the effects of obstruction of access due to closing of local roads: "The owners of the hotel ('the claimants') say that during the period of the works they were subjected to various forms of interference with their use and enjoyment of the hotel. Hoardings were erected which obscured the hotel or prevented or restricted access by themselves and their customers. For long periods the roads and pavements leading to the hotel were totally or partially obstructed or closed. The works caused considerable noise, dust and vibration. All this was very detrimental to business."
Lord Hoffmann: "Section 68 gave compensation for injurious affection caused by the "execution" of the works. In Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand LR 4 HL 171 the House of Lords (with Lord Cairns dissenting) decided that this meant that there could be compensation only for the effects of the construction of the railway and not for its operation. If an embankment unreasonably obstructed the claimant's light or access, he could claim compensation. But he could not claim for what would otherwise have been a nuisance caused by the noise, vibrations or smell of passing trains."
Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 10
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Thomas v Kwik Save Stores Ltd; CA 27-Jun-2000 - Times, 27 June 2000
 
Jackson and Davies (Trading As Samson Lancastrian) v Royal Bank of Scotland [2000] EWCA Civ 203
28 Jun 2000
CA
Potter LJ, Nourse LJ and Ferris J
Damages
In error, the bank disclosed to one customer, the mark up being taken by another in selling on goods to that first customer. The second customer went to make its purchasers direct, and the first customer sought damages from the bank. The bank appealed an award based upon four years loss of profit. Held: The bank was not in a position to appreciate the sensitivity of the information, and though in breach could not be held liable for four years loss of profit. The award was reduced to one year's loss of profit, all other losses being too remote.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Gnitrow Ltd v Cape Plc Times, 18 July 2000
18 Jul 2000
CA

Litigation Practice, Damages
Where a main contractor had agreed through its insurers levels of compensation to be paid to workers affected by asbestosis, and sought to recover those damages from a sub-contractor, justice could only be served if the compensation agreement was disclosed to the defendant. If not then the defendant would be needlessly in the dark when considering a payment in. The judge need not however know of the terms of the agreement until an appropriate point in the trial.

 
Hanif v Middleweeks (a firm) [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 920
19 Jul 2000
CA
Mance LJ, Roch LJ
Professional Negligence, Damages
The claimant sought damages for an opportunity lost by the negligence of the defendant. There were three putative defences to the action that the claimant had lost the chance of bringing. Held. A mathematical approach is not always appropriate in lost opportunity claims. However, the Judge ought not to have disregarded the first two defences (which had high probabilities of failing) and taken only the percentage he assessed for the defence that was most likely to succeed.
In calculating a claimant's lost chance of pursuing litigation against a third party, its task is not normally to determine definitively how that litigation would have been decided. Mance LJ said that there might be circumstances where it was overwhelmingly clear that the prospects of success were nil or 100%.
1 Citers


 
Lawrence v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Times, 25 July 2000
25 Jul 2000
CA

Damages, Personal Injury
Current changes in interest rates did not justify a departure from the guidelines set down of two per cent on damages for general pain and suffering and loss of amenity. There is no essential or necessary reason why the rate for such a claim should be the same as was to be used when calculating future losses. The two awards of interest are fundamentally. One is an actuarial assessment of future losses, and the other is a discretionary award.

 
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Seaways Maritime Ltd, SGS United Kingdom Ltd, Oakprime International Ltd, Arvind Mehra (No 2) Times, 03 October 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 230; [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 218
27 Jul 2000
CA
Aldous LJ,Ward LJ
Damages, Litigation Practice
Where a deceit was established leading to an award of damages, that award of damages was not capable of being reduced under the Act through a contribution to the loss occasioned by the claimant's own behaviour, where that behaviour did not fall under the heads of contribution recognised by the Act.
The fourth defendants, Oakprime Limited (O), chartered to transport their cargo of bitumen. O had persuaded the shipowners, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, to authorise signature of bills of lading which O knew to be false. O presented the bills of lading to Standard Chartered Bank in order to obtain payment under letters of credit. A question on the appeal was whether the third defendant, Mehra, a director of O, was personally liable for the false representations made to the Bank. The judge had held that he was, on the ground that he had authorised, directed and procured the acts complained of with full knowledge that those acts were tortious. Held: The appeal succeeded, because although M was the person who was responsible for making the misrepresentations, he did not commit the deceit himself; the representations were made by O and the Bank relied upon them as representations by Oakprime and not as representations made by M. The Court went on to consider whether it had been open to the judge to hold that M was liable as a joint tortfeasor for authorising and procuring the misrepresentations. Lord Justice Aldous saw three circumstances in which a director or employee, acting as such, would be liable for tortious acts committed during the course of his employment. First, where the director or employee commits the tort himself. Lord Justice Aldous gave as an example the lorry driver who is involved in an accident in the course of his employment. Second, where the director or employee, when carrying out his duties for the company, assumes a personal responsibility. Lord Justice Aldous gives Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd as an example of a case where alleged liability on that ground failed on the facts. Third, where the director does not carry out the tortious act himself, nor does he assume liability for it, but he procures and induces another, the company to, commit the tort. Lord Justice Aldous: "A person who procures and induces another to commit a tort becomes a joint tortfeasor (see Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited [1989] RPC 583 and Molnlycke AB v Procter & Gamble Ltd [1992] RPC 583). There is no reason why a director of a company should be in any different position to a third party and therefore it is possible that a director can be capable of becoming a joint tortfeasor by procuring and inducing the company, for which he works, to carry out a tortious act. However there are good reasons to conclude that the carrying out of duties of a director would never be sufficient to make a director liable. That was the view of the Court of Appeal in C Evans v Spritebrand Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 317." and "… public policy requires that the Courts will not lend their aid to a man who founds his action upon an immoral or illegal act. The action will not be founded upon an immoral or illegal act, if it can be pleaded and proved without reliance upon such an act. … The fact that damage may not have resulted but for a decision to deceive is irrelevant to the cause of action when pleaded and proved."
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Governor of Her Majesty's Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2); HL 27-Jul-2000 - Times, 02 August 2000; Gazette, 17 August 2000; [2000] 3 WLR 843; [2001] 2 AC 19; [2000] UKHL 48; [2000] 4 All ER 15; [2000] UKHRR 836
 
Barry v Davies (T/A Heathcote Ball and Co) and Others Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 235
27 Jul 2000
CA
Pill LJ, Sir Murray Suart-Smith
Contract, Consumer, Damages, Agency, Contract
The claimant sought damages from an auctioneer who had failed to accept his bid, and withdrawn the items from the sale. Held: In an auction without reserve the auctioneer was not entitled to withdraw an item on the basis that the highest or only bid was too low. To do so was to put himself in a position as if he was bidding for the seller, and that was not allowed save under the Act. The auctioneer himself was liable in damages to the disappointed bidder in a sum equivalent to the market value less the rejected bid.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 57(4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 HM Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd third Party intervening); HL 3-Aug-2000 - Gazette, 17 August 2000; Times, 03 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 45; [2000] 4 All ER 385; [2000] 3 WLR 625; [2001] 1 AC 268
 
Llanelec Precision Engineering Co Ltd v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_81_2000
3 Aug 2000
LT

Land, Damages

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Howkins and Harrison (A Firm) v Tyler and Another Times, 04 August 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2001] Lloyds Rep PN 1
3 Aug 2000
CA

Damages, Professional Negligence
Having paid out £400,000 to a lender as damages for a negligent survey valuation after default in repayments by the defendant, the claimant also sought to recover the payment from the defendant under the Act. The application to stay the claim was refused. The Act could only operate for a claim for the same damage. What was lost by the lender from the default was not the same. Compensation was not the same as recovery of a debt, and the claimant could not claim a subrogation for the lender.
Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 1(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Edmunds v Simmonds; QBD 4-Oct-2000 - Times, 21 November 2000; [2001] 1WLR 1003
 
Regina on Application of T v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [2000] EWHC Admin 404
19 Oct 2000
Admn

Damages, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd Times, 25 October 2000
25 Oct 2000
IHCS

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport
The definition 'any other bodily harm' contained in the Warsaw Convention was wide enough to include psychiatric harm. Returning to the original text of the convention it was clear that it was not intended simply to import the French law, and that the words were ones of expansion, rather than limitation of the scope of damages which could be claimed. Psychiatric harm which was not claimed to be consequent from physical injury or condition, was claimable under the Convention.
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

 
J A Pye (Oxford) Limited v South Gloucestershire District Council [2000] EWCA Civ 268
26 Oct 2000
CA
Otton, Ward LJJ, Evans-Lombe J
Land, Damages
The company appealed an award by way of valuation for land which was to valued as if purchased compulsorily. It was argued that they were raising points which should have been litigated before the Lands Tribunal. Held: The appeal to the court was only on a point of law, and the company should have brought the full elements of its its valuation claim at the tribunal. The tribunal had not erred in law, and the appeal failed.
Land Consolidation Act 1961
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_93_1999; [2001] EWLands RA_16_1999
3 Nov 2000
LT

Land, Damages
LT COMPENSATION - Compulsory purchase of land for purpose of nature reserve to compensate for loss of SSSI caused by Cardiff Bay Barrage – preliminary issues - Land Compensation Act 1961 s 5 rule (3) - Pointe Gourde rule - held land had no special suitability or adaptability for purpose - rule (3) did not apply - public purpose of acquisition must be left out of account - scheme underlying acquisition was Cardiff Bay Barrage.
Land Compensation Act 1961 5(3)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 UYB Ltd v British Railways Board; CA 15-Nov-2000 - Times, 15 November 2000; Gazette, 02 November 2000; Gazette, 09 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 265
 
Cape and Dagleish (a Firm) v Fitzgerald and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 287
15 Nov 2000
CA

Damages

[ Bailii ]

 
 Harmon CFEM Facade (UK) Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) v Corporate Officer of the House of Commons; QBD 15-Nov-2000 - Times, 15 November 2000
 
Ludlow v National Power Plc [2000] EWCA Civ 289
17 Nov 2000
CA
Henry LJ, Potter LJ, Wall J
Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Amec Developments Ltd v Jurys Hotel Management (UK) Ltd [2000] EWHC Ch 454; [2000] EGCS 138; [2002] TCLR 13; [2001] 7 EG 163; (2001) 82 P & CR 22; [2001] 1 EGLR 81
17 Nov 2000
ChD
Anthony Mann QC
Damages
The court considered the award of damages after building works by the defendant in breach of a restrictive covenant. Held: The complexity of the financing and other factors relevant to the calculation of the developer's profit mean that the Court is unlikely to be able to perform this exercise without expert assistance and evidence from the parties as to how they would have perceived their respective strengths and weaknesses in any negotiations.
Chancery Amendment Act 1858
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
B S and N Limited (BVI) v Micado Shipping Limited (Malta) ('The Seaflower') [2000] EWCA Civ 296
22 Nov 2000
CA

Transport, Damages, Contract

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Martel Building Ltd v Canada; 30-Nov-2000 - 2000 SCC 60; [2000] 2 SCR 860
 
Kieth Platt v Colin Platt and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 322
13 Dec 2000
CA
The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Chadwick And Lord Justice Latham
Company, Damages, Torts - Other
The applicant appealed an order setting aside transfers to him of shares in a family company, found to have been made after misrepresentation and a breach of fiduciary duty. Three companies owned by the family had fallen into difficulties, and the shares were transferred for nominal consideration, on the basis of representations made as to the liabilities of the company, and as to their later return. Later the company prospered, and they sought the return of their shares. Held: The appeal was as to matters of fact. The judgment did not set out clearly the facts found on the issues now tested, but there was evidence upon which his findings could properly be based. There had been misrepresentation by the defendant. The measure of damages for a tortious misrepresentation is the sum necessary to put the claimant in the position he would have been in, if the misrepresentation had not been made. The judge should not have assessed damages on a partial realisation basis without discounting the assets for the value of the directors service contracts, which would have been costs in the realisation of the assets.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Johnson v Gore Wood and Co Gazette, 05 January 2001; Times, 20 December 2000; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2000] UKHL 65; [2001] 2 WLR 72; [2001] 1 All ER 481; [2002] 2 AC 31
14 Dec 2000
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hutton Lord Millett
Damages, Professional Negligence, Company
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company's owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to a limited company, where the loss claimed was over and above that suffered by the company. Damages for distress should not normally be awarded in an action for breach of contract. The public interests in the claimant bringing one action to recover all his losses remained appropriate, but must not be applied mechanically. A settlement in favour of the company, need not release the defendant from an action by the shareholder. Asking whether a plea raised or an issue challenged amounted to an abuse of process required a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before. As one cannot comprehensively list all possible forms of abuse, so one cannot formulate any hard and fast rule to determine whether, on given facts, abuse is to be found or not . . It is preferable to ask whether in all the circumstances a party's conduct is an abuse than to ask whether the conduct is an abuse and then, if it is, to ask whether the abuse is excused or justified by special circumstances.
Lord Hutton said: "where a shareholder is personally owed a duty of care by a defendant and a breach of that duty causes him loss, he is not debarred from recovering damages because the defendant owed a separate and similar duty of care to the company, provided that the loss suffered by the shareholder is separate and distinct from the loss suffered by the company. "
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: "But Henderson v. Henderson abuse of process, as now understood, although separate and distinct from cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel, has much in common with them. The underlying public interest is the same: that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. This public interest is reinforced by the current emphasis on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the interests of the parties and the public as a whole. The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defence in later proceedings may, without more, amount to abuse if the court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or defence should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all. I would not accept that it is necessary, before abuse may be found, to identify any additional element such as a collateral attack on a previous decision or some dishonesty, but where those elements are present the later proceedings will be much more obviously abusive, and there will rarely be a finding of abuse unless the later proceeding involves what the court regards as unjust harassment of a party. It is, however, wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in early proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive. That is to adopt too dogmatic an approach to what should in my opinion be a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd; CA 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 31 January 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 338; [2001] 1 WLR 579; [2001] EMLR 14
 
Evis and Smith v Commission for New Towns ACQ/125-7/2000
31 Dec 2000
LT

Land, Damages, Landlord and Tenant
LT COMPENSATION - preliminary issue - disturbance payment - Land Compensation Act 1973 s 37 - business premises acquired by authority with compulsory purchase powers - land later developed by company with lease from authority - entitlement to compensation under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s 37 - whether such entitlement precludes compensation under 1973 Act s 37(1)(a) - whether fact that development not carried out by authority precludes compensation under s 37(1)(c) - held compensation under s 37(1)(a) not precluded but no entitlement under s 37(1)(c)
Land Compensation Act 1973 37

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.