When asking whether a claim for damages could properly include an additional element to recover additional costs of an impecunious pursuer, the proper approach, consistent with the modern authorities, was to ask whether the loss was or was not foreseeable and that this was ultimately a question of fact in each case.
Hope, Lord President
1994 SLT 971, 1994 SC 1
Applied – Chanthall Investments Ltd v F G Minter Ltd OHCS 22-Jan-1976
The court considered the approach to claims for damages which had been made worse because of the impecuniosity of the victim: ‘I am of opinion that in each case where the matter arises it is a question of fact, in the particular circumstances, . .
Cited – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Cited – Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL 18-Jul-2007
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 March 2021; Ref: scu.188651