Damages - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 69 cases, and was prepared on 10 January 2010.

Bordin -v- St Mary's NHS Trust [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 287)
2000 QBD Crane J	Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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

Firth -v- George Ackroyd Junior Ltd [2000] Lloyds Med Rep 313
2000	Personal Injury, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers

Hanif -v- Middleweeks (a firm) [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 920
2000 CA Mance LJ	professional Negligence, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	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%.

Parry -v- Noth West Surrey Health Authority
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
12 Jan 2000 CA	Banking, Damages
	After a sale by the mortgagee in possession, the judge at first instance had found that the plaintiff had negligently failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the premises were sold at the best price that could reasonably be obtained: Held: Where a lender having sold property secured by a charge took the property into possession and sold it, but failed to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable, any liability of a guarantor of the loan was reduced to the extent of that failure. In calculating damages the task of the court is to determine the true market value of the property, and where there is a bracket of acceptable valuations the court will take the mean figure within that bracket as being the market value.

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	Casemap 1 Citers
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

Balmoral Group Ltd -v- Rae
25 Jan 2000 EAT	Employment, Damages
	Where a tribunal looked to assess compensation for unfair dismissal, and issues of causation arose, the tribunal should take a broad approach looking fairly at what was just and equitable looking at the claimant's loss and the extent to which the loss was attributable to the employer. It would normally be wrong to seek to apply considerations appropriate in other contexts such as forseeability, and remoteness of damage.

Bouette -v- Rose
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 [2000] EWCA Civ 39
10 Feb 2000 CA	Damages, Torts - Other, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

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	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited -v- Panatown Limited [2000] UKHL 43; [2000] 4 All ER 97; [2000] 3 WLR 946; [2001] 1 AC 518
17 Feb 2000 HL Lord Clyde Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Millett	Construction, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue under a deed of covenant entered into for this purpose, and so the main contractor would only be entitled to nominal damages. "It would be an extraordinary defect in our law if, where (for example) A enters into a contract with B that B should carry out work for the benefit of a third party, C, A should have no remedy in damages against B if B should perform his contract in a defective manner. Contracts in this form are a commonplace of everyday life."
	Link[s] omitted

Pegler Ltd -v- Wang (Uk) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 137; 1997 TCC No 219
25 Feb 2000 TCC Bowsher QC J	Contract, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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
	Link[s] omitted

T G Harris -v- the Post Office (Royal Mail) EAT/171/99
25 Feb 2000 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton	Discrimination, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites
	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.

Howkins & Harrison (A Firm) -v- Tyler and Another
9 Mar 2000 ChD	Damages, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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)

Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc -v- Herbert Broderick [2002] 1 AC 371; [2000] UKPC 11; (Appeal No 68 of 1998)
20 Mar 2000 PC	Damages, Commonwealth	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	(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.
	Link[s] omitted

Ball -v- Banner and Others; Neill Clark (A Firm) -v- Healey & Baker (A Firm) [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 569
23 Mar 2000 ChD Hart J	Professional Negligence, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	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)

Heil, Rees and Another, Schofield, Ramsay, Kent, Warren, Annable, Connolly -v- Rankin & Anr, Mabco (102) Ltd, Saunders & Taylor Ltd, Rivers, Griffith & Ors, Northern General Hospital Nhs Trust, Southern Derbyshire Health Authority, Tasker [2000] 2 WLR 1173; [2000] EWCA Civ 84; [2000] 3 All ER 138
23 Mar 2000 CA	Constitutional, Personal Injury, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

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	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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."
	Link[s] omitted

Barry -v- Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd [2000] P.I.Q.R. Q263
30 Mar 2000 QBD Latham J	Personal Injury, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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

Zanzibar -v- British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 387
31 Mar 2000 QBD Stuart-Smith LJ	Contract, Torts - Other, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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). 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)

Plant Construction Plc -v- Clive Adams Associates, JMH Construction Services (2) 1996 ORB 750
31 Mar 2000 TCC Judge Hicks QC	Damages, Construction	Casemap
	The case had been remitted to the court to settle the apportionment of damages in a case of breach of contract, rather than in tort. When assessing levels of contribution causation alone is important but not the entire criteria. In cases where both parties would have had to act with due care and skill to avoid the damage, the question is whether a breach was causative, whether alone or as being one of concurrent causes with the other's negligence, such that but for the concurrence of those causes the damage would not have occurred.

Kuliarchar Sweater Industries Ltd -v- Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd [2000] EWHC 194 (Comm)
4 Apr 2000 ComC Langley J	Damages
	Link[s] omitted

Griffin Inns Limited -v- Tessel Meike Merel Van Oudenhoven [2000] EWCA Civ 102
4 Apr 2000 CA Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Stuart-Smith	Personal Injury, Damages
	Link[s] omitted

Holtby -v- Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd [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	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

Farley -v- Skinner [2000] EWCA Civ 109
6 Apr 2000 CA	Damages, Environment, Contract	1 Cites 1 Citers
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

Wisely -v- John Fulton Plumbers Ltd (Scotland) and Wadey -v- Surrey County Council [2000] UKHL 24; [2000] 1 WLR 820
6 Apr 2000 HL	Personal Injury, Damages, Benefits, Scotland	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A plaintiff in a personal injury action, was entitled to claim, and be paid, interest on his award for compensation for lost earnings, even though some part of it was to be paid direct to the Department of Social Security by way of recovery of benefits. The scheme for recovery of benefits paid deliberately stayed clear of complications which would arise if attempts were to be made to recalculate awards if interest on this element was not to be included. Section 17 meant that interest had to be calculated by reference to a figure which ignored the fact that benefits had been received and ignored the fact that the defendant was paying the benefits to the Secretary of State.
	Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 17
	Link[s] omitted

Neil Knapman -v- Keith Charman [2000] EWCA Civ 115
6 Apr 2000 CA	Personal Injury, Damages
	Link[s] omitted

Warren -v- Northern General Hospital Trust
10 Apr 2000 CA	Damages	1 Cites
	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

Van Oudenhoven -v- Griffin Inns Ltd
10 Apr 2000 CA	Damages
	When awarding damages to a claimant who lived abroad, it would not be correct to apply a lower discount rate, so as to award a higher level of damages to reflect the different taxation regime in that country which would take a greater share of the damages. This was not an exceptional circumstance which would allow departure from the rule.

Slack -v- Glenie and others [2000] EWCA Civ 145
19 Apr 2000 CA	Damages, Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Adcock -v- Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 117
26 Apr 2000 CA Waller LJ, Sir Christopher Slade	Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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
	Link[s] omitted

Rolls Royce Ltd and another -v- Heavylift-Volga Dnepr Ltd and another
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	Casemap 1 Citers
	EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to Feelings EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings.
	Link[s] omitted

Casey -v- Morane Limited [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.
	Link[s] omitted

Western Digital Corporation; Western Digital (Singapore) Ltd and Western Digital Netherlands and British Airways Plc [2000] EWCA Civ 153
12 May 2000 CA	Transport, Damages
	The rights to claim for damage to cargo under the Warsaw Convention were not now to be limited to those named as consignor or consignee. A cargo owner might claim even if not strictly a party.
	Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929
	Link[s] omitted

Dimond -v- Lovell [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
12 May 2000 HL Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Saville of Newdigate, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough	Consumer, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled. Held: The arrangement was a consumer credit agreement, and since it was not in proper form, the sums were not recoverable from the claimant and so in turn were not recoverable either from the defendant. The Act was intended to punish those who sought to work around it. The additional benefits achieved as part of the mitigation of loss must be taken into account. Even if the claimant could have recovered she could have recovered no more than the "spot" charge and not the charges made for an agreement that entitled the claimant to more benefit than the cost of hire itself (e.g. by way of financing the cost of replacement pending resolution of a claim or the cost of fighting the claim itself).
	Consumer Credit Act 1974 127(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Applied Implants Technology Ltd and Others -v- Lufthansa Cargo Ag and Others
17 May 2000 CA	Transport, Damages
	A part of a machine was packaged separately but with other parts of the same machine transported by air under one bill of lading. It was damaged. Held: The compensation was to be calculated by reference to the weight of the single packaged part and not by reference to the weight of the larger combined package.
	Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

Heaton & others -v- Axa Equity & Law Life Assurance Society Plc and Anr [2000] EWCA Civ 164
19 May 2000 CA	Damages, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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
	Link[s] omitted

Robert Mark Gordon -v- J B Wheatley and Co (a Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 173; [2000] Lloyds LR PN 605
24 May 2000 CA Kennedy LJ, Kay LJ	Damages, Limitation, Financial Services, Professional Negligence	1 Cites 1 Citers
	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
	[ Bailii ]

June Robertson Or Macey-Lillie -v- Lanarkshire Health Board &C [2000] ScotCS 136
26 May 2000 OHCS Lord Philip	Damages, Personal Injury, Scotland
	Economic circumstances have not changed sufficiently yet to alter the rate of three per cent used when calculating damages in personal injury cases. Though the returns on government stocks had fallen the figure of two per cent was not yet appropriate, and lay within the range of returns contemplated when the original figures had been set.
	Damages Act 1996
	Link[s] omitted

Johnston -v- W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd
7 Jun 2000 IHCS	Damages, Construction	Casemap 1 Cites
	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.

Kuwait Airways Corporation -v- Iraqi Airways Company and Another (No 5)
8 Jun 2000 QBD	Damages, Torts - Other
	The test of the forseeability of damages in case involving wrongful interference with goods, should be used instead of asking whether or not the damage was the direct or indirect consequence of the tort. The issue arose from failure to see the real issue was usually whether the case arose from contract or tort. No one formulation can encompass all the issues. Though wrongful interference is a tort of strict liability, the test should be that adopted generally in tort, namely the forseeability of the damage complained of.

Heil -v- Rankin [2000] EWCA Civ 187; [2001] QB 272
13 Jun 2000 CA	Personal Injury, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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.
	[ Bailii ]

Rahman -v- Arearose Limited & Another, University College London, NHS Trust [2001] QB 351; [2000] EWCA Civ 190
15 Jun 2000 CA Schiemann LJ, Laws LJ, Henry LJ	Damages, Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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: '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.
	Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1(1) 2(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Ballantine -v- Newalls Insulation Co Ltd
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 [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	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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
	Link[s] omitted

Thomas -v- Kwik Save Stores Ltd
27 Jun 2000 CA	Damages, Personal Injury
	When assessing damages under the Act, the court's job was limited to that of calculating financial dependency. The deceased had provided, as his wife, housekeeping services to the claimant, but she had been in poor and diminishing health. There was no way in reality of predicting whether she could have continued to provide those services or would have even become a housekeeping burden. Damages for loss of her housekeeping services reduced from 50,000 to 20,000.
	Fatal Accidents Act 1976

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	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

Gnitrow Ltd -v- Cape Plc
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.

Lawrence -v- Chief Constable of Staffordshire
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) [2000] EWCA Civ 230; [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 218
27 Jul 2000 CA Aldous LJ,Ward LJ	Damages, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Governor of Her Majesty's Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2) [2000] 3 WLR 843; [2001] 2 AC 19; [2000] UKHL 48; [2000] 4 All ER 15; [2000] UKHRR 836
27 Jul 2000 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough	Torts - Other, Damages, Human Rights, Prisons	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The release date for a prisoner was calculated correctly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case law required the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained too long. The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict liability, and the governor was liable in damages even though he had acted correctly according to then current standards. A court judgment declares the law as it has been. There is no special law relating to prisoners to exempt a governor from liability in such a situation. For the detention to be lawful it must be lawful under domestic law, comply with the general requirements of the Convention, and not be open to criticism on the ground that it is arbitrary. A short-term prisoner who has served half his sentence and a long-term prisoner who has reached his non-parole date have a statutory right to be free: a conditional right, but nonetheless a right, breach of which gives an enforceable right to redress. Lord Slynn discussed the idea of a prospective only ruling, and said that there may be situations in which it would be desirable, and in no way unjust, that the effect of judicial rulings should be prospective or limited to certain claimants. Lord Hobhouse said that prospective ruling was a denial of the constitutional role of the courts.
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Barry -v- Davies (T/A Heathcote Ball & Co) and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 235
27 Jul 2000 CA	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)
	Link[s] omitted

Howkins & Harrison (A Firm) -v- Tyler and Another [2001] Lloyds Rep PN 1
3 Aug 2000 CA	Damages, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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)

HM Attorney General -v- Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd third Party intervening) [2000] UKHL 45; [2000] 4 All ER 385; [2000] 3 WLR 625; [2001] 1 AC 268
3 Aug 2000 HL Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough	Damages, Contract, Media	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The author had written the book in breach of his duty of confidence. Having signed the Official Secrets Act, he created a contractual private law duty. After conviction as a spy, the publication of the book was in breach of the undertaking by not first seeking authority to publish. Held: In a case where the usual remedies for breach of contract were insufficient, it was possible to make an order which would remove from the person in breach of contract, the benefits of the breach. In these circumstances, it was appropriate to award a sum equal to the amount of royalties he would receive from his publisher. The law now recognises a restitutionary claim for profits made from a breach of contract in cases of 'skimped' performance, and cases where the defendant obtained his profit by doing 'the very thing' he contracted not to do, as here.
	Official Secrets Act 1911
	Link[s] omitted

Llanelec Precision Engineering Co Ltd -v- Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_81_2000
3 Aug 2000 LT	Land, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

Regina on Application of T -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [2000] EWHC Admin 404; [2000] EWHC Admin 404
19 Oct 2000 Admn	Damages, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

King -v- Bristow Helicopters Ltd
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	Land, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites
	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
	Link[s] omitted

Waters and others -v- Welsh Development Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_93_1999; [2001] EWLands RA_16_1999
3 Nov 2000 LT	Land, Damages	Casemap
	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)
	Link[s] omitted

Cape & Dagleish (a Firm) -v- Fitzgerald and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 287;
15 Nov 2000 CA	Damages
	Link[s] omitted

UYB Ltd -v- British Railways Board [2000] EWCA Civ 265
15 Nov 2000 CA	Litigation Practice, Damages
	When disallowing interest on a claim, the judge refused to allow the admission of the plaintiff's expert report on quantum, dated two years before the writ, in rebuttal of the respondent's assertion, that they had not known of the amount claimed until immediately before the action. Held: The draft had been marked without prejudice, and it was against public policy to discourage attempts to settle actions without litigation by allowing reference to such documents. The draft remained a draft, and the figures were in fact different from those ultimately disclosed. The judge was correct not to allow the report to be admitted.
	Link[s] omitted

Harmon CFEM Façade (Uk) Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) -v- Corporate Officer of the House of Commons
15 Nov 2000 QBD	Damages
	If an award of interim damages was properly payable, then it remained payable notwithstanding that the claimant was impecunious, and that in principle the damages might be come repayable where the claimant could have become unable to repay. It was wrong to debar a payment, but the possibility might be allowed for in the proportion of the damages award expected which might be payable as an interim award.

Colin Trevor Ludlow -v- National Power Plc [2000] EWCA Civ 289
17 Nov 2000 CA Henry LJ, Potter LJ, Wall J	Personal Injury, Damages
	Link[s] omitted

Edmunds -v- Simmonds [2001] 1WLR 1003
21 Nov 2000 QBD Gartland J	International, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant suffered damages in a road traffic accident in Spain caused by the respondent. A Spanish court would have allowed much lower damages. Such damages should normally be assessed in accordance with the law of the country where the accident happened, but the Act allowed other applicable law to be considered. In this case, both claimant and defendant lived in England, and the majority of damage transpired in England, and the court could and would calculate damages to English standards. The issue was a procedural one, and survived the change in law.
	Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 9, 11

B S & N Limited (BVI) -v- Micado Shipping Limited (Malta) ('The Seaflower') [2000] EWCA Civ 296
22 Nov 2000 CA	Transport, Damages, Contract	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

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	Casemap 1 Cites
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

Johnson -v- Gore Wood & Co [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	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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 s 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: "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. "
	Link[s] omitted

George Evis & Godfrey Richard 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
	Link[s] omitted