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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 107 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm); CA 2002 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1743; [2002] 2 WLR 1279; [2002] QB 1312; [2002] PNLR 2; [2002] PIQR P20
 
Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc [2002] IRLR 447; [2002] EWCA Civ 463
2002
CA
Peter Gibson LJ
Employment, Damages
There was a claim for damages in respect of psychiatric injury said to result from a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, which was asserted to be recoverable notwithstanding Johnson, on the basis that the acts of the employer complained of could be severed from the employer’s conduct leading to the dismissal, and thus found a claim. Held: The acts/conduct complained of could not be so severed. In Johnson the majority in the House of Lords held that unfairness in the manner of dismissal of an employee does not give rise to a common law action, whether it be founded in contract or in tort, but must be the subject of Employment Tribunal proceedings. The implied term of trust and confidence cannot be used in connection with the way the employer/employee relationship is terminated. There may be cases where the particular manner in which an employee is dismissed or the circumstances attending dismissal is or are confined to events occurring at the same time or immediately before the dismissal. In other cases that manner and those circumstances may include a pattern of events stretching back over a period. It is a question of fact for the trial judge to determine in each case. The claimant fell within the latter categor
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mawdsley v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWHC 1780 (QB)
2002
QBD
Morland J
Defamation, Damages
The court asked whether the summary judgment procedure under sections 8 to 10 of the 1996 Act, with its ceiling of £10,000, was appropriate in a case in which a jury after a trial might award £30,000. He decided that it was appropriate. A claimant in defamation has the same duty as any other victim of a tort to mitigate his losses. An admission by the defendant might attract a substantial discount in the damages to be awarded.
Defamation At 1996 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Burdis v Livsey; CA 2002 - [2003] QB 36; [2002] EWCA Civ 510
 
M (a child) v Leeds Health Authority [2002] PIQR Q46
2002
QBD
Sullivan J
Damages, Personal Injury
The claimant, her brother and her parents had lived in a detached house before the relevant negligence occurred, but thereafter had moved into a bungalow purchased and adapted to meet her needs. The defendant sought to deduct, during the period (to the age of 25 years) for which the claimant was expected to share the house with her family, the value to the claimant's parents of having a house provided free of charge for the whole family. Held: The argument was rejected: "I come back to the basic proposition, which is that this is a compensation claim made on behalf of M. It is intended to compensate her for the effects of her disability. While she, for the purposes of this calculation, notionally lives at home with her parents until the age of 25, it seems to me that she is in no different position from any child who could not reasonably be expected to go out into the market place and buy accommodation."
The defendant argued also for a deduction of the value of the property that, if the claimant had not been injured, she would have been likely to have purchased herself when she left home. Sullivan J accepted that such a deduction was appropriate from the time when the claimant could have been expected to leave the family home and acquire her own accommodation.

 
Skidmore v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust Times, 18 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 18; (2003) 69 BMLR 13; [2002] ICR 403; [2002] Lloyd's Rep Med 299
15 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Keene and Sir Christopher Slade
Employment, Health Professions, Employment, Damages
The appellant was a doctor accused of lying to a patient about the details of an operation. He appealed a decision dismissing him. Held: Such an allegation was an allegation of professional misconduct, and should have been dealt with as such, and not by way of dismissal and the employment tribunal system. Professional misconduct was defined in the section as 'Performance or behaviour of practitioners arising from the exercise of medical or dental skills' In the case of doubt it would normally be preferable for a Health authority to proceed on the basis that it was profession not personal misconduct. The reply was given as part of the performance of his professional duties.
Department of Health Circular 90(9)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sony Computer Entertainment v Paul Owen [2002] EMLR 34; [2002] EWHC 45 (Ch)
23 Jan 2002
ChD
Jacob J
Media, Intellectual Property, Damages
Claim for infringement - sale of chip designed to bypass country code control on the claimant's gaming machines. Held: An infringement of copyright committed in breach of an injunction restraining such infringement can found an award of additional damages.
In distinguishing WB, Jacob J said: "That seems to me to be a very different case because there is no provision authorising damages for contempt itself and no provision in the general law for additional damages for the wrongs alleged [Bauer's case was a case of breach of confidence]. Here there is. Section 97 requires the Court to have regard to all the circumstances. Those circumstances, to my mind, plainly can include the circumstance that the sales were done in breach of a Court Order. They make the act flagrant. They make the act fairly describable as "scandalous". In this regard, copyright is different from many other rights precisely because there is the statutory right to additional damages if the Court, in all the circumstances, thinks it right to grant them. I do, in this case, in principle, although I am told that the evidence will establish mitigating circumstances. "
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Warriner v Warriner Times, 28 March 2002
24 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Dyson
Damages, Personal Injury
Where it was proposed to the court to apply a different discount rate when determining investment return on a sum awarded in a personal injury action as damages for future pecuniary loss, as against the rate set under the Lord Chancellor's guidelines, the court must look at the Lord Chancellor's reasons for fixing the rate, and depart only where for example the case was in some category, or which had different and special reasons, in either case not considered when setting the rate.
Damages Act 1996 1(2) - Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No 2301)

 
Konig and Motor Insurers Bureau v Hay [2002] EWCA Civ 19
24 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Dyson, And, Mr. Justice Harrison
Damages, Personal Injury
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.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Spice Girls Limited v Aprilia World Service Bv [2002] EMLR 510; [2002] EWCA Civ 15
24 Jan 2002
CA
The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Chadwick, And, Lord Justice Rix
Damages
When considering the statutory right to rescind for innocent misrepresentation, the representation should be interpreted to bear the meaning in which it would reasonably be understood by the claimant, the natural and ordinary meaning which would be conveyed to a normal person.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 234; [2002] EWCA Civ 21; [2002] 1 WLR 2304
28 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Sedley
Damages, Personal Injury, International
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was 'in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?' The claimant's position under Dutch law was different, with all benefits deducted from any compensation awarded. Held: The accident occurred on an English registered trawler, and the applicable law was English as to liability but possibly Dutch as to damages. If the 1976 Act was procedural rather than substantive, the law applicable would be English, and the Dutch law as to deduction of all benefits would not apply. Traditionally, issues as to the quantification of damages have been seen as procedural rather than substantive. The general structure of the Act also suggested that it was intended to offer English remedies, and those should be applied: "the general rule is not to be dislodged easily".
After referring to the case of Boys v Chaplin, Waller LJ said: "The passages referred to support the view that so far as damages are concerned it is a question for the substantive law whether a head of damage is recoverable, but quantification of the actual head is procedural. If one poses the question whether the issue in this case is about the right to recover certain benefits or whether it is about the quantification of the damages for loss of dependency the answer seems to me to be that it is about the quantification of the damages. The concern of the court in considering a tortious claim should be as to liability, including liability for particular heads of damage without the existence of which liability might not be complete. The question whether deductions should be made for benefits is not a question which goes to liability: it is a question going to assessment" and "Procedurally an action on behalf of a person killed in an accident is only available in the English courts by virtue of what is now sections 1 and 2 of the 1976 Act . . As I have already said, we are concerned with an action which can only be brought in this country by virtue of the 1976 Act."
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 4 - Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 11 - Merchant Shipping Act 1995 25
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kiam v MGN Ltd Gazette, 15 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 43; [2002] 1 WLR 2810; [2003] QB 281
28 Jan 2002
CA
Lords Justice Simon Brown, Waller and Sedley
Damages, Defamation
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 have thought necessary. "In a great many cases proof of a cold-blooded cost-benefit calculation that it was worth publishing a known libel is not there, and the ineffectiveness of a moderate award in deterring future libels is painfully apparent . . judges, juries and the public face the conundrum that compensation proportioned to personal injury damages is insufficient to deter, and that deterrent awards make a mockery of the principle of compensation."
Awards in an adequate amount may also be necessary to deter the media from riding roughshod over the rights of other citizens. "[I]n a great many cases proof of a cold-blooded cost benefit calculation that it was worth publishing a known libel is not there, and the ineffectiveness of a moderate award in deterring future libels is painfully apparent … Judges, juries and the public face the conundrum that compensation proportioned to personal injury damages is insufficient to deter, and that deterrent awards make a mockery of the principle of compensation."
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in liquidation) v Ali and Others (No 4) Times, 15 February 2002
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Employment, Damages


 
Husain and Zafar v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [2002] EWCA Civ 82; [2002] 3 All ER 750; [2002] ICR 1258; [2002] IRLR 460; [2002] Emp LR 406; A3/2001/9016/CHANF
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Damages, Employment, Contract, Torts - Other
The appellants challenged the refusal of their claims for stigma damages following the collapse of their former employer. Held: If a relevant breach of contract is established, and causation, remoteness and mitigation are satisfied, recovery of financial loss in respect of damage to reputation in employment cases is not excluded. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to prove. The claim was the same whether in tort or in contract. The judge had excluded certain evidence as to the damages suffered. The onus of proving causation lies on the plaintiff. The particular claimants in this case had failed to establish their case. It was not necessary to call similar the evidence sought to be admitted. To require it would exclude many proper claims.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Voaden v Champion ( 'Baltic Surveyor' ) [2002] EWCA Civ 89; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 623
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann Lady Justice Hale And Lord Justice Rix
Transport, Evidence, Damages
The 'Baltic Surveyor' was lost at its moorings in a storm. A neighbouring ship had been negligently secured, and freed itself and sank the Baltic Surveyor. The owner appealed findings as to the value of the boat, and securing pontoon. She asserted that the boat chosen for comparison had in fact been sold for more and had been in a lesser condition. The boat was of a unique and historical character. Held: There had been an error as to the sale price of the boat chosen as a comparable. It was argued that the evidence sought to be admitted had been available at trial, and should not now be admitted. Following Ladd, the court applied three tests, that it had not reasonably have been available, that it would have been influential, and that it was credible. Those conditions applied, and a new value was assessed by the court. The appellants argued that the loss of the pontoon should have been treated as the loss of a building rather than a machine. The damages was the cost of replacing the pontoon, not the value of what was lost. The court found the judge's assessment correct, and the damages were assessed on the basis of the remaining life of the pontoon as a chattel. It was not proper to award damages for loss of personal use in top of the award of the full value of the boat.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Henderson v Jaouen and Another Times, 07 March 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002
1 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Mantell and Mr Justice Wall
International, Personal Injury, Damages, European
The plaintiff had been injured in an accident and had sued and recovered damages for his injuries in France. Later, his condition deteriorated. In France he would have been able to revive his action to claim further damages, but he sought a similar right from an English Court, claiming a right to do so under the Act because the deterioration had occurred exclusively whilst he was in England. The defendant and his insurers appealed a refusal to strike out the claimant's claim. Held: The claim should be struck out. The harmful even required by the Convention had occurred in France. The Bier case was not on all fours and was to be interpreted restrictively.
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 (Cmnd 7395) - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Caledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others Times, 13 February 2002; [2002] UKHL 4; [2002] 1 LLR 553; [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 261; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 321; 2002 SLT 278; [2002] CLC 741; 2002 SC (HL) 117; [2002] BLR 139; 2002 SCLR 346; 2002 GWD 6-178
7 Feb 2002
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Scott of Foscote
Insurance, Damages
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual requirement, those giving the contractual indemnity must bear the primary liability. The insurer could claim subrogation to the indemnity claim in respect of the same loss.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
East West Corporation v DKBS 1912 and Another [2002] EWHC 83 (Commercial)
7 Feb 2002
ComC

Transport, Contract, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Horace Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 170
7 Feb 2002
CA

Damages

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Gough v Mummery [2002] EWCA Civ 265
11 Feb 2002
CA
Kay LJ
Damages
Whether psychiatric injury caused by accident
[ Bailii ]
 
Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust Times, 20 February 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 88; [2003] QB 20
14 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Lady Justice Hale
Damages, Personal Injury
A disabled mother sought damages for the birth of a child after a negligently performed sterilisation. Held: The rule in McFarlane against recovery of damages for the birth of a healthy child, did not prevent an award which was intended to reflect the particular damages attributable to the difficulties of providing care with her disabilities.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cigna Insurance Company of Europe SA NV and others v Vural Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 143
15 Feb 2002
CA

Damages
Appeal against award of only nominal damages after allegation of insurance fraud.
[ Bailii ]
 
R v R [2002] EWCA Civ 409
19 Feb 2002
CA
Ward, Chadwick LJJ
Damages, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (on the Application of Mullen) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department; QBD 21-Feb-2002 - Times, 27 February 2002; Gazette, 28 March 2002; 2002] EWHC 230 (Admin); [2002] 1 WLR 1857
 
Jaura v Ahmed Times, 18 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 210
21 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Mummery, And, Lord Justice Rix
Evidence, Damages
The applicant sought damages for the wrongful termination of her lease by the respondent. The landlords re-entered in default of payment of the rent. The premises had been sub-let, and she sought damages for the loss of rental profits. Held: The judge had admitted evidence which was not in formal form, but it was within his discretion to do so. The judge was wrong to award the capital value of the lease in addition to the loss of profits. He had awarded simple interest on the damages at 8% rather than the overdraft rate paid by the claimant. The court decided that the rate payable should reflect better the real cost of a small businessman borrowing that money, and allowed the appeal to that extent, but not compounded.
Rix LJ dealt with the question of setting the interest rate by first referring to Chitty on Contracts: "In business contexts, the rate of interest should reflect the current commercial rate. The approach of the Commercial Court is to award interest at a rate which broadly represents the rate at which the successful party would have had to borrow the amount recovered over the period in question." and then noted that a rate of 1% above base rate had become the usual rate adopted by the Commercial Court, albeit that this was "only a presumption" and could be varied up or down to meet the fairness of the parties' particular situation.
Civil Evidence Act 1995 2(4) - Supreme Court Act 1981 35A
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lowe v Guise Times, 25 March 2002; Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 197
26 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Morland
Damages, Benefits, Personal Injury
The claimant had care of his severely disabled brother. Following the accident he was unable to give the same level of care, though he continued to receive the care allowance. Held: An injured claimant who worked, albeit gratuitously, for his family suffered the loss of being able to contribute the value of his service to the needs of his family. That loss was genuine and sounded in damages. To allow otherwise would be to make the loss of an ability to garden measurable in damages but not the ability to care for a family member.
[ Bailii ]
 
David Howard v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ACQ/117/2001
26 Feb 2002
LT

Land, Damages
The application sought to determine the compensation for land acquired compulsorily. The property was held under a long lease, but was severely dilapidated. Held The condition of the property was relevant both as to loss of rental and as to capital compensation. The valuation must be robust and based upon realistic assessments. The capital value was 7,500. The claimant said that when he learned that the land was to be acquired compulsorily, he had ceased to let it. To make such a claim, the claimant had to show a causal connection. None had been shown.
[ LT ]
 
East West Corporation v DKBS 1912 and Another [2002] EWHC 253 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 239
27 Feb 2002
ComC

Transport, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Times, 01 March 2002; Gazette, 28 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 7; [2002] 2 AC 628; [2002] 2 WLR 578
28 Feb 2002
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Personal Injury, Damages
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft. Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for 'bodily injury'. That term did not include mental injury, and the awards for such were overturned. The brain as a part of the body was perfectly capable of being injured, and where the injury had a physical manifestation, damages were claimable. There was respectable medical support for the view that, for example, a major depressive disorder was the expression of physical changes in the brain and its hormonal chemistry. Such physical changes were capable of amounting to an injury and, if they did, they were bodily injuries. Also cases of post-traumatic stress disorder which had been shown to have a physical element in changes of the brain had been successful. The rights of a claimant are exclusively defined in the Convention; if the Convention gives no remedy then the alleged wrong will not be satisfied at law. Lord Hope: statutes of the ‘always speaking’ type: should be interpreted in the light of the current scientific evidence … The proper approach is to make use of the best current medical and scientific knowledge that is available.”
Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929 17 - Carriage by Air Act 1961
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Admiral Management Services Ltd v Para-Protect Europe Ltd and Others Times, 26 March 2002; Gazette, 18 April 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 2722; [2002] EWHC 233 (Ch); [2002] FSR 59; [2002] CP Rep 37; [2003] 2 All ER 1017; [2003] 1 Costs LR 1
4 Mar 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Intellectual Property, Damages
The claimants suspected the defendants of wrongfully using their confidential information. Their staff made an initial investigation. They obtained a search and seizure order; and the material seized was examined by the staff. A Tomlin Order was made, under which an issue between the parties as to the defendants' liability to the claimants for their staff costs referable to the investigation and examination was referred to a judge. Held: In general a party's own employees' expenses incurred in investigating a claim were not recoverable, but the exception in Nossen was not limited to patents challenges, and could include other intellectual property tort claims. The test was whether if the company had employed an external expert, that expert's expenses would also have been recoverable, and or where revenue has been lost as a result of the employee being unavailable to carry out revenue producing work.
Stanley Burnton J: "Of course, it may be difficult to quantify any loss of revenue or business consequential on the diversion of employee time to dealing with the tort or breach of contract suffered by an employer. It may be that the cost of employee time may be taken as an approximation for the loss of revenue involved; but, if so, the claim remains a claim for loss of revenue rather than a claim for expenditure occasioned by the tort or breach of contract."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Deg-Deutsche Investitions-Und Entiwicklungsgesellschaft Mbg v Koshy and others [2002] EWCA Civ 484
11 Mar 2002
CA
Chadwick LJ, Charles J
Litigation Practice, Damages
Claim for damages after lifting of freezing order.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Irvine, Tidswell Ltd v Talksport Ltd; ChD 13-Mar-2002 - Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 367 (Ch); [2002] EMLR 32; [2002] 2 All ER 414; (2002) 25(6) IPD 25039; [2002] 1 WLR 2355; [2002] FSR 60

 
 Edwards v The United Kingdom; ECHR 14-Mar-2002 - Times, 01 April 2002; 46477/99; (2002) 35 EHRR 487; [2002] ECHR 303
 
Campbell v Frisbee [2002] EWHC 328 (Ch)
14 Mar 2002
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Lightman
Employment, Damages, Information, Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights
The defendant appealed a summary judgement on the claimant's claim with respect to her alleged disclosure of details Miss Campbell's private life. The claimant sought an action for account of profits for breach of the terms of a contract of service. The defendant claimed that a violent assault by the claimant on her was a repudiation of the contract. There were some issues which must go to trial, but the claimant obtained judgement on those matters relating to her private life. Held: To defeat an application for summary judgment the respondent must show some 'real prospect' of success, even if improbable. Would the obligation of confidence be discharged by a repudiation? Restrictive covenants had been considered before, but not obligations of confidence. The Photo Production case established that not all obligations were defeated by a repudiation. The obligation of confidence survived any repudiation. The defendant argued that the restriction restricted her right of free speech. Here there was no overwhelming public interest argument. There was no prospect of success on this point and the appeal failed.
Civil Procedure Rules 24.2 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Nottinghamshire Healthcare National Health Service Trust v News Group Newspapers Ltd; ChD 14-Mar-2002 - Times, 01 April 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 409 (Ch); [2002] EMLR 33
 
Wilding v British Telecommunications Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 349
19 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Potter LJ
Employment, Discrimination, Damages
The employee challenged the Employment Tribunal’s finding, upheld by the EAT, that he had not acted reasonably in refusing an offer of re-employment made by his employer. Held: The appeal failed. Potter LJ said: "As was made clear in the Judgment of the EAT, (at paragraph 64) the various authorities referred to by the Tribunal (see paragraph 22 and 23 above) and Payzu –v- Saunders are apt to establish the following principles which (in a form which I have somewhat recast) were accepted as common ground between the parties. (i) It was the duty of Mr Wilding to act in mitigation of his loss as a reasonable man unaffected by the hope of compensation from BT as his former employer; (ii) the onus was on BT as the wrongdoer to show that Mr Wilding had failed in his duty to mitigate his loss by unreasonably refusing the offer of re-employment; (iii) the test of unreasonableness is an objective one based on the totality of the evidence; (iv) in applying that test, the circumstances in which the offer was made and refused, the attitude of BT, the way in which Mr Wilding had been treated and all the surrounding circumstances should be taken into account; and (v) the court or tribunal deciding the issue must not be too stringent in its expectations of the injured party. I would add under (iv) that the circumstances to be taken into account included the state of mind of Mr Wilding."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
L Friend v Hazemead Ltd EAT/143/01
25 Mar 2002
EAT
Mr Commissioner Howell QC
Employment, Damages
EAT Unfair Dismissal - Compensation
The appellant had been dismissed summarily, but had not been given a chance to explain her position. She succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal, but even thought there was no contribution to her dismissal, the decision would have been the same, and damages were reduced accordingly. Held: The tribunal had made no error in law, but had followed Polkey. A finding that an employer was demanding was not a finding that any decision she made would be unreasonable.
1 Cites


 
Quantum Corporation Inc and Others v Plane Trucking Ltd and Another Times, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 350; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 25
27 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Latham
Damages, Transport
A valuable cargo was stolen whilst being transported. Part of the journey was by road, and part by air. The carriers sought to limit their liability, because of the provisions of the Act and Convention. It was argued that that did not apply, because part of the journey had been by air, and part only by road. Did liability depend upon the carrier having explicitly contracted to transport part way by road, and could a convention contract include a part transport by means other than road? Held: The Convention applied to a "contract for the carriage of goods by road". Authority established that the Convention applied where the carrier either promised unconditionally to carry by road, and on a trailer, possibly reserving an option to transport by different means for all or part of the way and left the means open, so that carriage by road was a possibility. It applied here, and remained open to the claimants to argue under article 29 that the limitation should not apply because of the way it had happened.
Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road Art 1, 17, 29 - Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dixon and Another, Regina (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Times, 22 April 2002; [2002] EWHC 831 Admin
10 Apr 2002
QBD
Judge Jack Beatson, QC
Agriculture, Damages
The applicants were farmers. Their cattle were destroyed after contracting foot and mouth disease. Their land was used for the burning of the carcasses of their animals, and of animals from neighbouring farms. They were compensated inter alia for the use of their land for burning the carcasses of their neighbours, but not their own animals. Held: The Act did not contain a clear express power to compel the use of land for burning, but one was properly inferred. There was no obligation to pay compensation for the use of the claimants' land for the burning of their own animal carcasses.
Animal Health Act 1981 31 34(2) Sch 3
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Todd and Others v Adams and Another Times, 03 May 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] 2 Lloyds Law Rep 293; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1
18 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Neuberger
Transport, Health and Safety, Damages, Litigation Practice
The boat owners had failed to comply with the 1975 safety rules, and seamen died. The boat owners relied upon the restriction on damages in the 1995 Act, and the seamen's families argued that the failure to apply the safety rules removed that limitation. Held: A breach of the safety rules did not give rise to a separate cause of action for damages against the ship owners. The system for certifying vessels would sit uneasily with any other interpretation, and a criminal remedy was also provided for. The court distinguished between challenges to conclusions of primary fact or inferences from those facts and an evaluation of those facts.
Mance LJ said: "With regard to an appeal to this court (which would never have involved a complete rehearing in that sense), the language of 'review' may be said to fit most easily into the context of an appeal against the exercise of a discretion, or an appeal where the court of appeal is essentially concerned with the correctness of an exercise of evaluation or judgment—such as a decision by a lower court whether, weighing all relevant factors, a contract of service existed. However, the references in rule 52.11(3)(4) to the power of an appellate court to allow an appeal where the decision below was 'wrong' and to 'draw any inference of fact which it considers justified on the evidence' indicate that there are other contexts in which the court of appeal must, as previously, make up its own mind as to the correctness or otherwise of a decision, even on matters of fact, by a lower court. Where the correctness of a finding of primary fact or of inference is in issue, it cannot be a matter of simple discretion how an appellant court approaches the matter. Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission to appeal) that a finding or inference is wrong, the role of an appellate court is to determine whether or not this is so, giving full weight of course to the advantages enjoyed by any judge of first instance who has heard oral evidence. . In the present case, therefore, I consider that (a) it is for us if necessary to make up our own mind about the correctness or otherwise of any findings of primary fact or inferences from primary fact that the judge made or drew and the claimants challenge, while (b) reminding ourselves that, so far as the appeal raises issues of judgment on unchallenged primary findings and inferences, this court ought not to interfere unless it is satisfied that the judge's conclusion lay outside the bounds within which reasonable disagreement is possible. In relation to (a) we must, as stated, bear in mind the important and well-recognised reluctance of this court to interfere with a trial judge on any finding of primary fact based on the credibility or reliability of oral evidence. In the present case, however, while there was oral evidence, its content was largely uncontentious."
Neuberger J stressed that the question whether there was a contract of service on the facts involved the weighing up of a series of factors.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 185(1) - Fishing (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 (SI 1975 No 330) 16
1 Citers


 
Burke v LFOT Pty Ltd 187 ALR 612; [2002] HCA 17
18 Apr 2002

Gaudron ACJ, McHugh, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
Commonwealth, Damages, Equity, Natural Justice
(High Court of Australia) Trade and commerce - Damages - Equitable contribution - Liability to pay damages under ss 75B, 82, 87 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) for breach of s 52 of the Act - Whether solicitor who gave negligent advice should contribute to the loss suffered by his client as a consequence of another's misrepresentation which loss could have been avoided by careful advice by the solicitor - Whether equitable maxims prevent requirement of contribution.
Equity - Equitable contribution - Scope of - Requirement of co-ordinate liability - Whether solicitor who gave negligent advice should contribute to loss suffered by client as a consequence of another's representation where the loss could have been avoided by careful advice by the solicitor.
Contribution - Equitable contribution - Scope of and availability - Co-ordinate liability - Requirements of - Whether compatible with the obligations imposed by Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) for breach of s 52 of the Act.
Words and phrases - "co-ordinate liability", "natural justice".
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Thatcher v Telewest Communications London South Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 618
18 Apr 2002
CA
Potter LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
Claimant's application for leave to appeal against level of damages awarded on personal injury claim.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hinc and Another v Warren Rees and Co (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 764
18 Apr 2002
CA
Morritt VC, Mummery, Longmore LJJ
Damages
The claimants appealed against the level of damages awarded on their claim of negligence by the defendat solicitors.
[ Bailii ]
 
John Doyle Construction Limited v Laing Management (Scotland) Limited Times, 10 July 2002
18 Apr 2002
SCS
Lord MacFadyen
Scotland, Construction, Damages
The pursuer made a loss and expense claim in global form in a construction dispute. He was unable to prove that all of his losses stemmed from the default. Held: A global claim requires proof that each and every element of the loss claimed followed from the breach. Proof that any event not part of the fault caused any part of the loss would defeat the entire claim. However some common sense should be applied, and where individual losses demonstrably flowed from individual acts of default, a rational apportionment might still be possible.
1 Cites

[ ScotC ]

 
 Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others; HL 25-Apr-2002 - [2002] UKHL 17

 
 Cape and Dalgleish v Fitzgerald and others; HL 25-Apr-2002 - [2002] UKHL 16

 
 Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and others; HL 25-Apr-2002 - Times, 26 April 2002; [2002] UKHL 14; [2002] 1 WLR 1397; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 897; [2003] 1 CLC 11; [2002] TCLR 14; [2002] PNLR 37; [2002] BLR 255; [2002] 2 All ER 801; 81 Con LR 1

 
 Heaton and Others v AXA Equity and Law Life Assurance Society plc and Another; HL 25-Apr-2002 - Times, 15 May 2002; [2002] UKHL 15; [2002] CPLR 475; [2002] CP Rep 52; [2003] 1 CLC 37; [2002] 2 AC 329; [2002] 2 WLR 1081; [2002] 2 All ER 961
 
Regina (Linda Anne Soper) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2002] EWHC 815 (Admin)
2 May 2002
Admn
Miunby J
Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Newman v Folkes [2002] EWCA Civ 591
3 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Sedley And Mr Justice Sumner
Personal Injury, Damages
The claimant suffered head injuries in a car accident. The defendant appealed the award of damages, on the basis that the claimant had made exaggerated loss of earnings claims, and should have received only reduced, 'Manchester' damages. The claimant had never paid tax or national insurance, but lived a lifestyle suggesting income. Held: The judge had eventually found evidence to support part of the claim, and had made an award supported by that evidence. He had been awarded a sum for care. He was now violent and potentially aggressive. The judge's award was not so wrong as to be capable of being set aside on appeal. The judge had correctly reduced the multiplier to allow for the uncertainties of the evidence.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bayliss v Lunt [2002] EWCA Civ 716
9 May 2002
CA

Damages
Renewed application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Boateng v Hughmans (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 593; [2002] Lloyds Reports PN 449
10 May 2002
CA
Mummery, Latham LJJ, Sir Christopher Slade
Professional Negligence, Damages
The court was asked: "What has to be proved by the claimant in a case where the negligence of his solicitor has consisted of the failure to give him proper advice, in order to establish a sufficient causal link between the solicitor's negligence and the loss which he has sustained and thus entitle him to substantial damages?" Held: Sir Christopher Slade said: "It is by now trite law that it does not suffice for a claimant who seeks to recover substantial damages arising out of his solicitors' failure to give him proper advice as to the risks of a proposed transaction to show that such failure occurred and that he suffered loss under the transaction. In such a case, it cannot be presumed that the negligent solicitor caused the loss. The claimant has to prove a connection, sometimes called a 'causal link', between the negligence and the loss which justifies making the solicitor pay substantial damages. Simple logic requires that, to show such causal link, he must first satisfy the court as to what action, if any, he would have taken to avoid the loss if proper advice had been given. If he fails to satisfy the court on this point, he can recover no more than nominal damages. Even if he satisfies the court that, in the events which happened, the loss would have been avoided if relevant advice had been given, the court will still have to decide whether the loss suffered was in fact caused by the failure to give such advice."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5); HL 16-May-2002 - Times, 21 May 2002; [2002] 2 WLR 1353; [2002] 2 AC 883; [2002] UKHL 19
 
Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming 'The Happy Ranger' [2002] EWCA Civ 694; [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 357
17 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Tuckey And Lord Justice Rix
Transport, Damages
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules. Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should be read so as to reflect the clearly expressed intention of the parties. The bill of lading is the bedrock on which the mandatory code is founded. Did it contain the terms required. This was a contract for carriage, and not a charterparty. The rules did therefore apply obligatorily, the limitation of liability applied, and the appeal succeeded.
Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1971
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Samuels and Another v Benning [2002] EWCA Civ 858
22 May 2002
CA

Damages

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Marlow v East Thames Housing Group Ltd [2002] EWHC 1460 (QB)
24 May 2002
QBD
Cooke J
Employment, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1259
27 May 2002
CA
Laws LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Damages, Criminal Practice
Renewed application for leave to appeal against decision refusing compensation after wrongful conviction.
[ Bailii ]
 
Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney Times, 26 June 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002
27 May 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Park
Damages, Torts - Other, Equity, Costs
The landlord sought an injunction against the defendant. The defendant countered, relying upon sec 2(1). Held: The remedy provided by the section was limited to the award of damages. It could not, therefore, be used to defend an action for an injunction. Whilst he might be entitled in equity to repudiate the lease, he could not repudiate only part of the lease. The landlord might e criticised for its earlier conduct of the case, but rule 44 was concerned with the behaviour of the parties in conducting the litigation itself, and the rule could not be used to overturn the costs consequences because of misbehaviour outside the litigation.
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1) - Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4)(a)

 
Mohammed Ali Shaher and others v British Aerospace Flying College Limited [2002] ScotCS 151
28 May 2002
OHCS
Lord Wheatley
Scotland, Personal Injury, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Kingsley v The United Kingdom (No 2) Times, 04 June 2002; (2002) 35 EHRR 177; 35605/97; [2002] ECHR 464; [2002] ECHR 468; (2002) 35 EHRR 10
28 May 2002
ECHR
Wildhaber, Rozakis, Costa, Ress, Sir Nicolas Bratza, Ridruejo, Jorundsson, Bonello, Makarczyk, Turmen, Straznicka, Lorenzen, Fischbach, Casadevall, Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Levits, Kovler, Boer-Buquicchio
Human Rights, Damages
The finding that a party had been denied a fair trial may of itself be sufficient compensation. The applicant had been excluded from management of licensed casinos. The appeal board had been found to have given the appearance of bias against him. "The Court recalls that it is well established that the principle underlying the provision of just satisfaction for a breach of Article 6 is that the applicant should as far as possible be put in the position he would have enjoyed had the proceedings complied with the Convention's requirements. The Court will award monetary compensation under Article 41 only where it is satisfied that the loss or damage complained of was actually caused by the violation it has found, since the State cannot be required to pay damages in respect of losses for which it is not responsible."
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings
European Convention on Human Rights 4.1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
ATH and another (Executors of the Estate of M, decd) v MS Times, 03 July 2002; Gazette, 08 August 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 792; [2002] 3 WLR 1179; [2003] QB 965
11 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Tuckey and Mr Justice Jackson
Personal Injury, Damages
The claimants were the children of the deceased, seeking damages following the death of their mother. At the time of the death they were not living with their father but moved to live with him after the death. They claimed damages for the services provided by the father and his new wife. Held: The new support accrued as a result of the accident and was to be disregarded under the section. However the trust under which any damages were paid would be unlikely to be enforced, that is the father would not ask for payment for the services, and following Hunt, if the terms of the trust seemed unlikely to be fulfilled then the court awarding damages should take steps to avoid the outcome.
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 4
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Green v Vickers Defence Systems and Others Times, 01 July 2002; Gazette, 01 August 2002
12 Jun 2002
CA
Ward, Clarke, Collins LJJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Damages
The deceased died after commencing a claim for personal injuries for mesothelioma. The action had been compromised with an agreement for a provisional consent order. After his death, his widow sought to claim on the basis as settled. Held. Having settled the action on the basis that if the deceased developed the disease, he would be compensated on a full liability basis, it was not now open to the company to go back on that agreement. The parties could have formed an agreement which left open such questions, but they had not done so.
1 Cites


 
Guntrip v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWCA Civ 892
18 Jun 2002
CA
Simon Brown VP LJ
Damages
Application for leave to appeal by the Ministry against the calculation of an award of damages.
[ Bailii ]
 
Melville J and Elizabeth L Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 924; [2003] 4 All ER 384; [2002] JPL 1481; [2002] RVR 298
28 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Carnwath LJ
Land, Damages
The claimant's land was subject to a compulsory purchase order to make land available for a scheme to make possible a much larger and more valuable scheme. He asserted that the compensation should be calculated in accordance with the value of the scheme which it enabled. Held: The Pointe Gourde case remained applicable. The rule is that 'compensation for a compulsory purchase acquisition of land cannot include an increase in value which is entirely due to the scheme underlying the acquisition' Carnwath LJ: 'The right to compensation for compulsory acquisition is a basic property right. It is unfortunate that ascertaining the rules upon which compensation is to be assessed can involve such a tortuous journey, through obscure statutes and apparently conflicting case law, as has been necessary in this case. There can be few stronger candidates on the statute book for urgent reform, or simple repeal, than section 6 of and Schedule 1 to the 1961 Act.'
Land Compensation Act 1961 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation, Re [2003] EWCA Civ 1005
3 Jul 2002
CA

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Damages

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
McManus and others v Beckham Times, 11 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 939; [2002] 1 WLR 2982; [2002] 4 All ER 497
4 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Laws
Defamation, Media, Damages
The claimant sought damages from the defendant who was a pop star, and had vociferously, publicly, and wrongly accused the claimant of selling pictures with fake autographs of her husband. The defendant obtained an order striking out the claim on the ground that the defendant was not responsible for repetitions of the slander by others. Held: It was not possible to dispose of the republication issue at the interlocutory stage. Much would depend on the findings of the jury, in the light of appropriate directions. Whether the defendant was so responsible was a matter eventually for a jury to decide. She might be found liable if her own fame was such that she expected or should reasonably expect anything extraordinary which she said in public, to be reported. The striking out was set aside. It would be a question of fact for each case. "The reality is that the court has to decide whether, on the facts before it, it is just to hold [the defendant] responsible for the loss in question".
Waller LJ said: "What the law is trying to achieve in this area is a just and reasonable result by reference to the position of a reasonable person in the position of the defendant. If a defendant is actually aware (1) that what she says or does is likely to be reported, and (2) that if she slanders someone that slander is likely to be repeated in whole or in part, there is no injustice in her being held responsible for the damage that the slander causes via that publication. I would suggest further that if a jury were to conclude that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant should have appreciated that there was a significant risk that what she said would be repeated in whole or in part in the press and that that would increase the damage caused by the slander, it is not unjust that the defendant should be liable for it. Thus I would suggest a direction along the above lines rather than by reference to 'foreseeability'."
Laws LJ said: "It will not however in my judgment be enough to show that D's slander is a cause of X's further publication: for such a cause might exist although D could have no reason to know of it; and then to hold D responsible would not be just. This is why the old formulae, "natural and probable cause," is inapt even as a figurative description of the relationship that needs to be shown between D's slander and the further publication D is to be held liable for the latter. It must rather be demonstrated that D foresaw that further publication would probably take place, or that D (or a reasonable person in D's position) should have so foreseen and that in consequence increased damage to C 'would ensue'.
Such an approach, I hope, may go some modest distance to demythologise the law of defamation. I make it clear that I intend what I had said to be in conformity with Waller LJ's suggestion at the end of his judgment as to how a jury might be directed, though with difference to him I think that any avoidance of the term "foreseeability" is commended by the need for clarity rather than adherence to principle, for in principle the approach he proposes, and for what its worth my own reasoning, require that the damage in question flowing from X's act be foreseen or foreseeable by D or the reasonable person in D's position"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
A v Bottrill [2002] UKPC 44
9 Jul 2002
PC

Commonwealth, Damages, Professional Negligence
PC (New Zealand) The defendant was a pathologist who carried out cervical smears. His actions were found to be negligent. Held: The Board considered whether it would be correct to require an additional prerequisite of intention or conscious recklessness before an award of exemplary damages. Such a requirement would always bring evidential difficulties and "courts in common law countries have remained true to the underlying rationale of the exemplary damages jurisdiction. Courts in all countries have openly recognised the exceptional and unusual nature of this jurisdiction. They have recognised the need to confine this remedy to truly exceptional and unusual cases. Punishment is primarily a matter for criminal law. They have, further, been well aware of the importance, and the difficulty, of confining the use of this remedy in cases of negligence. " However "as a matter of principle and authority, intentional wrongdoing or conscious recklessness is not an essential prerequisite to an order for payment of exemplary damages. Legal principle does not require that the court’s jurisdiction should be limited in this way." At the same time: "their Lordships cannot over-emphasise what has already been indicated more than once. The cases where it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages are exceptional. The cases where it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages in the absence of intentional wrongdoing or conscious recklessness will be exceptional and rare indeed."
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 1306 (Comm)
11 Jul 2002
ComC

Transport, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Stratton v Brown [2002] EWCA Civ 1063
11 Jul 2002
CA
Pill LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Damages, Personal Injury
Renewed application for permission to appeal. Granted
[ Bailii ]
 
Blayney (T/A Aardvark Jewelry) v Clogau St David's Gold Mines Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1007; [2003] FSR 19
16 Jul 2002
CA
The Vice-Chancellor, Rix LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ
Intellectual Property, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Davies v The United Kingdom Times, 01 August 2002; 42007/98; [2002] ECHR 597; (2002) 35 EHRR 720; [2002] ECHR 602
16 Jul 2002
ECHR
M Pellonpaa, President and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, A. Pastor Ridruejo, E. Palm, M. Fischbach, J. Casadevall and S. Pavlovschi, Section Registrar M. O'Boyle
Company, Damages
The applicant had been subject to applications for his disqualification from acting as a company director. The Secretary of State waited until the last day before issuing proceedings, and the proceedings were then delayed another three years pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against others. The government responded that the proceedings were complex, and the applicant himself had contributed to the delay by his own applications. Held: The total delay was unjustified and inordinate, and the delay infringed the applicant's right to a determination within a reasonable period of time. The domestic court had criticised the respondent for its delay. The proceedings had not been pursued with diligence. The court would not make an award of damages for financial losses, but that did not prevent an award for the stress of the delay, and an award was made in this case.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Others Times, 07 August 2002; Gazette, 03 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1041; [2002] 3 WLR 1425; [2003] QB 443
24 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Sedley
Negligence, Land, Personal Injury, Damages
The claimant sought damages. She had been injured after the negligent erection of a stand which was known to be potentially hazardous. The contractor was uninsured, and the claimant sought damages from the Hospital which had arranged the fair in its grounds to raise funds. Held: The hospital was liable under the Act. A splat wall, where people bounced off a trampoline to be stuck to a wall by Velcro. The hospital should have known this was dangerous. They could avoid liability by employing a reputable and competent contractor. They had requested sight of his insurance but did not know it had expired before the day. The hospital had a duty to the claimant, but had not fulfilled it. The actual claim was the difference between what had been recovered and what would have been recoverable if the contractor had been insured. The claim was therefore one of economic loss.
Lord Woolf categorised the claim not as one for economic loss but as a claim for damages for personal injury. The hospital owed the claimant a duty of care under s 2 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 to take reasonable care for her safety in using the premises to which she had been invited. That included a duty to take reasonable care to satisfy itself as to the competence of the supplier of the splat-wall. In order to discharge that duty the hospital ought to have asked him about his insurance position as evidence which was relevant to whether or not he was likely to be competent. Having asked the question, it was reasonable for the hospital to accept the supplier's answer.
Waller LJ considered that on the particular facts of the case the occupier's duty of care to its visitors required it to take reasonable steps to satisfy itself as to the supplier's financial viability to meet any claim against it, whether by insurance or otherwise. He agreed with Lord Woolf that the hospital was under no duty to verify the supplier's statement about his insurance position by requiring to see a copy of the policy.
Sedley LJ said that there was a difference in principle between harm to a person or property and insurance against inability to recover damages for such harm. The occupier owed a duty to take reasonable care to use only competent contractors, but he did not consider that the occupier owed any duty of care to its visitors to take steps to ensure that its independent contractors would be insured or otherwise able to meet any claim for damages for negligence. He expressed concern about the ramifications if the court were to impose such a duty on a public institution which invited people into its grounds. He asked rhetorically: "What is there, in a legal system which offers equality before the law by seeking to treat like cases alike, to contain this case in a category peculiar to its own facts? If the ambit of a public institution's duty to its visitors embraces an obligation to check on contractors' insurance, why will a private person whose garden is used for a local fete not equally be liable to pay a sum representing full personal injury damages to a visitor injured, perhaps badly, by the negligent supervision of a coconut shy or a greasy pole by an uninsured stall holder? Or why will a householder who fails to check that his or her builder is insured not have to pay heavy damages to a neighbour who has been unable to make a worthwhile claim against the builder when a nail through a water pipe brings the neighbour's ceiling down or a carelessly handled blow torch burns their house down?"
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 2(4)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zaiwalla and Co (a Firm) v Walia Times, 01 August 2002; EAT/827/00; EAT/451/00; [2002] IRLR 697
24 Jul 2002
EAT
Mr Justice Maurice Kay, Dr D. Grieves and Mr P. R. A. Jacques
Employment, Damages, Discrimination
The claimant sought aggravated damages for the aggressive way the respondent firm had defended her action for sex discrimination. Held: In exceptional circumstances, and this was one, the tribunal could award additional damages where a respondent behaved in his defence in an over-enthusiastic way: "If a respondent misconducts himself in the defence of a discrimination case, it may amount to victimisation of the applicant in respect of the protected act of bringing the claim. It is easy to imagine cases in which the misconduct amounting to victimisation might only arise at a late stage of the proceedings, perhaps only during the hearing. It seems to us that it would be regrettable if such victimisation could only be compensated by the commencement of further proceedings." Generally a party should be warned in advance that this might be considered, and such awards should remain the exception.
The defendant said that the tribunal had not demonstrated its independence, but had restricted his cross examination of the claimant and had made many interruptions. The EAT found the allegation of bias unfounded.
Though there had been a delay of three months before promulgation of the decision, there was no reason to think that it was undermined. The defendant had not met the test for alleging perversity as set down in Yeboah.
"overenthusiastic litigants and litigants in Employment Tribunals may be tempted to read our conclusions in a way which would give the green light to claims for aggravated damages in respect of alleged misconduct in the defence of proceedings almost as a matter of routine. They would be wrong to do so. "
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 65
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ EATn ]
 
Hopley, Regina (on the Application of) v Liverpool Health Authority and others [2002] EWHC 1723 (Admin)
30 Jul 2002
Admn
Pitchford J
Damages, Personal Injury, Judicial Review
The respondent Health Authority had refused to consent to payment to the claimant of damages for personal injury by periodical payments under a with profits structured settlement made under Section 2 of the 1996 Act. Held: The decision was not amenable to judicial review because the function being performed by the Health Authority, as it affected the claimant, was a private one.
Pitchford J set out three elements to be identified when considering whether a public body with statutory powers was exercising a public function amenable to judicial review or a private function that was not. These were:
i) Whether the defendant was a public body exercising statutory powers;
ii) Whether the function being performed in the exercise of those powers was a public or a private one; and
iii) Whether the defendant was performing a public duty owed to the claimant in the particular circumstances under consideration.
Damages Act 1996 2
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Adamson v Halifax Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1134
30 Jul 2002
CA

Land, Damages

[ Bailii ]

 
 Smith and Another v South Gloucestershire Council; CA 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 30 August 2002; Gazette, 17 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1131

 
 Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company; ComC 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWHC 1626 (Commercial)

 
 Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and Another v Campbell; CA 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1143
 
Gough and Another v Mummery and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1573
4 Oct 2002
CA
Kennedy, Buxton LJJ
Damages, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Primavera v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1327
4 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mance And Lord Justice Latham
Financial Services, Damages, Professional Negligence
The claimant purchased a pension plan relying upon advice from the defendant. Since discovering the error, the plan had in fact prospered. The respondent appealed the judges failure to allow fully for the improvement when assessing damages. Held: Part of the claim required both to assess the loss as at 1995, and to recover later loses. It was double recovery. As to the rest the damages which might be assessed in 1995 would have disappeared by 2000. The claimant had not liquidated the fund in 1995. He had however still been misled by the defendant, and had acted as if the loss had been incurred. The damages stood to be assessed as at 1995.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Geest plc v Monica Lansiquot Times, 16 October 2002; [2002] UKPC 48
7 Oct 2002
PC
Bingham, Steyn, Hobhouse, Millett, Scott LL
Personal Injury, Damages
(St. Lucia) The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries. The defendant wished to allege that she had failed to mitigate her damages by accepting medical treatment. Held: If the plaintiff refused treatment, it was for the defendant to show that the refusal was unreasonable. A defendant wishing to make such an assertion must give proper notice of that intention either in the pleadings, or in correspondence.
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
La Rocca, Regina (on the Application of) v Social Security Commissioner and Another [2002] EWHC 2021 (Admin)
11 Oct 2002
Admn

Personal Injury, Damages, Benefits
Recovery of benefits paid from damages award.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Fallon v Shell UK Ltd; CA 15-Oct-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1548
 
Railtrack Plc (In Railway Administration) v Guinness Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1431
17 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Carnwath
Land, Damages
Application for leave to appeal against order of lands tribunal.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Willett (Now Whitling) v Marks and Spencer [2002] EWCA Civ 1427
18 Oct 2002
CA
Sir Martin Nourse, Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Mance
Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]

 
 Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; HL 24-Oct-2002 - Times, 25 October 2002; [2002] UKHL 40; [2002] 1 WLR 3024; [2002] 4 All ER 732; [2003] EMLR 1
 
Bernard, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield [2002] EWHC 2282 (Admin); [2003] HRLR 111; [2003] LGR 423
25 Oct 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Damages, Human Rights, Housing
The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. In breach of their duty under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, the respondent council failed for some 20 months to provide the family with accommodation suited to her disability. The consequences were appalling. The wife was doubly incontinent and, because there was no wheelchair access to the lavatory, was forced to defecate and urinate on the living-room floor. And she was unable to play any part in looking after her six children. Held: The respondent's failure was a clear breach of the claimant's article 8 rights and not at all finely balanced. The court awarded £10,000 damages.
Human Rights Act 1998 8 - National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Bernard and Another) v Enfield Borough Council Times, 08 November 2002; Gazette, 12 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2282 Admin; [2003] HLR 27; [2003] HRLR 111
25 Oct 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Damages, Human Rights, Housing
The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The defendant Council provided the family with a small house but in breach, as they ultimately accepted, of section 21(1) (a) of the National Assistance Act, failed to provide the family with accommodation suited to her disability. The claimants had had their human rights infringed by the respondents who had failed in their duties to provide assistance and so to respect their rights to private and family life. Held: The courts must respect the intention of the Act and the seriousness of the infringement. The council had not acted for some 20 months. There is no comparable tort, but awards should neither be low or high in comparison. Awards or maladministration are comparable. £10,000 was appropriate here.
Human Rights Act 1988 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Gregg v Scott Times, 04 November 2002; Gazette, 12 December 2002; Gazette, 19 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1471
29 Oct 2002
CA
Simon Brown, Mance, Latham LLJ
Damages, Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages. He had a lymphoma, but despite his seeking medical assistance, it was not diagnosed early, and his life expectancy was diminished. Held: In order to claim damages for a reduced life expectancy, the claimant had to show that the negligence contributed to the loss. Here, the claimant's disease had a poor prognosis in any event, and he had not been able to show that any actual damage had been caused. The case fell squarely within Hotson, and the claim failed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Flaviis v Pauley [2002] EWHC 2886 (QB)
29 Oct 2002
QBD

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Kanu v Kashif [2002] EWCA Civ 1620
30 Oct 2002
CA

Damages, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Neal v Jones (T/A Jones Motors) [2002] EWCA Civ 1731
31 Oct 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Roberts and Another v South Gloucestershire Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1568; [2003] 18 EG 114; [2003] RVR 43; [2003] P & CR 411
7 Nov 2002
CA
Carnwath LJ, Potter LJ
Land, Damages
The landowner appealed against the compensation awarded for the compulsory acquisition of his land for use as a road. The owners had been compensated only for its agricultural value, but said that it should have allowed for its value for minerals extraction. Held: The appeal failed. Carnwath LJ said: "The planning assumptions in the 1961 Act are intended to facilitate the task at arriving at fair compensation. With or without permission for a road, the claimant had no expectation in the real world of realising the value of his minerals in the foreseeable future, for the reasons set out in the decision on the section 17 application, and there is no reason for him to be compensated for its loss."
Land Compensation Act 1961 5(4) 39(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke v Taylor [2002] EWCA Civ 1874
11 Nov 2002
CA
Kay LJ, Dyson LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
Application for permission to appeal against the decision determining the quantum of damages awarded to the claimant in an action brought against the defendant arising out of a road traffic accident.
[ Bailii ]
 
Pentrehobyn Trustees (Trustees of Pentrehobyn Settlement) v National Assembly for Wales [2002] EWLands ACQ_116_2000
14 Nov 2002
LT

Land, Damages
LT COMPENSATION – land acquired for bypass – 17 years between announcement of scheme and entry – no planning permission to be assumed under statutory assumptions – whether planning permission for B1 development would have been granted – whether hope value – approach to these questions – whether cancellation assumption or no-scheme world – negative section 17 certificate – effect of this – held correct approach no-scheme world assumption – claimants failing to show permission would have been granted or hope value.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bruce v Dignity Funerals Ltd (Formerly SCI Funerals Ltd) EATS/0015/02; [2002] UKEAT 0015_02_2211
22 Nov 2002
EAT
The Honourable Lord Johnston
Employment, Scotland, Damages

Employment Rights Act 1996 123(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ EAT ]
 
Patel and Another v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1810
25 Nov 2002
CA

Land, Damages
Compensation for entry into land under compulsory purchase
[ Bailii ]
 
Clenshaw v Tanner and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1848
27 Nov 2002
CA
Kennedy, Chadwick, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Personal Injury, Negligence, Damages
The claimant was a cyclist. He passed along inside a line of traffic, and collided with a lorry turning left into a petrol station ahead of him, suffering serious injuries. He appealed against a finding that the lorry driver had signalled and that he had not been watching where he was going. Held: The claimant was lucky to have had found against him only the degree of contribution applied. The cyclist was in a racing position with his head down, and : "any cyclist who is taking reasonable care for his own safety knows that any vehicle turning left ahead of him will endanger him and he should therefore keep a particularly careful look-out." His appeal as to apportionment of liability was dismissed.
As to the disregard of housing benefits in calculating damages: "Parliament has not expressly provided that housing benefit shall be disregarded. The benefit was payable because the claimant's qualifying need arose in consequence of the tort of which he was the victim. In my judgment, it must therefore follow as the judge found that the payments of housing benefit should be taken into account in reduction of the claim for loss of earnings to date."
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 8
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Great Future International Limited and Others v Sealand Housing Corporation (in Liquidation) and Others; ChD 3-Dec-2002 - Times, 17 December 2002
 
North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA 1792; [2003] PIQR 232
6 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Ward, Sir Anthony Evans
Damages, Personal Injury
A new mother woke in hospital to see her baby (E) fitting. E suffered a major epileptic seizure leading to coma and irreparable brain damage. E was transferred to a London hospital and the following day the claimant was told by a consultant that E's brain damage was so severe that he would have no quality of life. The claimant and her husband then decided that E's life support should be terminated and E died in her arms approximately 36 hours after the seizure. Negligence in the Hospital was admitted, and the issue was the award of damages for nervous shock. Held: The Trust's appeal failed. The circumstances witnessed by her were distressing in the extreme and capable of producing an effect going well beyond that of grief and sorrow. Without the sudden and direct visual impression on the claimant’s mind of actually witnessing the event or its immediate aftermath there is no liability. The elements of proximity and causation are closely linked together. The case involved no new step in the award of such damages.
Ward LJ said: "In my judgment the law as presently formulated does permit a realistic view being taken from case to case of what constitutes the necessary "event". Our task is not to construe the word as if it had appeared in legislation but to gather the sense of the word in order to inform the principle to be drawn from the various authorities. As a word, it has a wide meaning as shown by its definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as: "An item in a sports programme, or the programme as a whole". It is a useful metaphor or at least a convenient description for the "fact and consequence of the defendant's negligence", per Lord Wilberforce [in McLoughlin], or the series of events which make up the entire event beginning with the negligent infliction of damage through to the conclusion of the immediate aftermath whenever that may be. It is a matter of judgment from case to case depending on the facts and circumstance of each case. In my judgment on the facts of this case there was an inexorable progression from the moment when the fit occurred as a result of the failure of the hospital properly to diagnose and then to treat the baby, the fit causing the brain damage which shortly thereafter made termination of this child's life inevitable and the dreadful climax when the child died in her arms. It is a seamless tale with an obvious beginning and an equally obvious end. It was played out over a period of 36 hours, which for her both at the time and as subsequently recollected was undoubtedly one drawn-out experience."
When considering whether the event was "horrifying", Ward LJ said: "For my part the facts only have to be stated for the test to be satisfied. This mother awakens to find her baby rigid after a convulsion. Blood is coming from his mouth. He is choking. Is that not as much an assault upon her senses as if her child had been involved in a road accident, suffered grievous head injuries as yet undetected and was found bleeding in the car seat? Her fear and anxiety was undoubtedly calmed not only afterwards when given an incorrect medical opinion that it was very unlikely and would be very unlucky if Elliot had suffered serious damage. Every mother would seize upon the good news for her comfort to reduce the impact of the horror. Consequently, all the more likely it is that she should have felt numb, panic stricken and terrified by the sudden turn in events when she arrived at King's College Hospital. That left her stunned. As the consultant observed she "responded as if half in a dream . . in a state of emotional shock". Her hopes were lifted then they were dashed and finally destroyed when shortly thereafter she was advised to terminate treatment on the life support machine. That she should have felt that "this was a complete shock" seems to me to be inevitable. That her immediate reaction should have been one of anger is understandable. Anger is part of the grieving process. But the agreed medical evidence made it plain that the combination of events "witnessed and experienced" caused her pathological grief reaction and was different from a normal grief reaction. They must have been chilling moments, truly shocking events, as the experts agreed in answer to the seventh question put to them, and thus amply justifying the conclusion that this was a horrifying event."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hewison v Meridian Shipping Pte, Coflexip Stena Offshore Ltd, Flex Installer Offshore Ltd; CA 11-Dec-2002 - Times, 28 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1821; [2003] PIQR 252; [2003] ICR 766; [2002] All ER (D) 146
 
Regina (Soper) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2002] EWCA Civ 1803
12 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Simon Brown <
Damages, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Brinn and Another v Russell Jones and Walker (A Firm) [2002] EWHC 2727 (QB)
12 Dec 2002
QBD

Professional Negligence, Damages
Police officers had instructed their solicitor to sue in defamation. By their negligence the chance of a claim was lost. They instructed a second firm of solicitors to claim against the first, but this firm also were negligent. The damages fell to be assessed. Held: It was not clear that the first firm were negligent in not joining the author having failed to identify that the defendant company was impecunious. The total claim must be reduced to allow for the effect of the impecuniosity of the final defendants on the settlement which would have been obtained.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
A v East Kent Community NHS Trust Times, 28 December 2002
17 Dec 2002
CA
Judge, Longmore, LJJ, Sullivan J
Damages
The claimant had become pregnant whilst placed in a mixed psychiatric ward. She claimed damages for their negligence. They responded that damages were not payable for a healthy child. Held: The court was bound by Rees, and damages were not to be awarded. Any additional costs she might bear because of her disability would be recoverable, but the costs to her own mother as grandmother, were not.
1 Cites



 
 MC v Italy; ECHR 19-Dec-2002 - 32391/96; [2002] ECHR 837
 
Taylor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 2761 (Admin)
20 Dec 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay
Damages, Prisons
Damages for wrongful imprisonment
[ Bailii ]
 
Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) Times, 27 December 2002; Gazette, 13 March 2003; [2003] ICR 318; [2002] EWCA Civ 1871; [2003] IRLR 102
20 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Ward
Damages, Discrimination, Employment
The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of £25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed. Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment tribunal decision. It did not look to see whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal had erred in law in reviewing that decision (Hennessy). This did not change with Civil Procedure Rules 52.11. Courts should be reluctant to award very substantial sums for injury to feelings. The most serious cases should be in the bracket £15,000 to £25,000, and the top figure should be exceeded only in the most exceptional cases. The court set out three broad elements of the compensation to be awarded in such cases. From £5,000 to £15,000 is appropriate for other serious cases. £500 to £5,000 is appropriate for not serious cases, including one off acts. A sum of less than £500 should not be awarded, since this would appear an insult.
Civil Procedure Rules 52.11 - Sex Discrimination Act 1975 66(4) - Employment Tribunals Act 1996 21 35 37
1 Cites

1 Citers

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