Mitchell v Mulholland (No. 2): CA 1972

The plaintiff was severely injured, and recovered substantial damages. andpound;20,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, and andpound;21,350 for nursing care. The court declined to adjust the award for anticipated inflation: ‘an award of damages for personal injury should not reflect the possibility of continuing inflation.’


Widgery LJ


[1972] 1 QB 65


England and Wales


See AlsoMulholland v Mitchell HL 1971
The House was asked whether to re-open an assessment of damages where there had been a very marked change in the injured person’s situation shortly after the trial. There was no suggestion of fraud. The Court of Appeal had decided to admit the fresh . .

Cited by:

CitedCunningham v Harrison CA 17-May-1973
The plaintiff had been severely injured, and would need nursing care for the rest of his life. His wife nursed him until her death, but had given a statement that if not for her two full time nurses would be required. His employer continued to pay . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225260