Stanley v Saddique (Mohammed)

Under section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, all benefits accruing as a result of a death must be disregarded when assessing dependency damages. This includes non-pecuniary benefits obtained when a dependent child joins a new family with a surviving parent and step-parent.

The court must nevertheless value only the support which the deceased would probably have provided. It must discount real contingencies affecting the quality, continuity and duration of that support. Where the prospect of support was too uncertain for a reliable multiplier and multiplicand calculation, damages may be assessed as a reasonable lump sum.

A motorist admitted liability under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for the death of the infant claimant's mother. The trial concerned damages for the child's loss of her services and financial support.

Norland J found that the mother would probably have provided intermittent, indifferent care and limited financial support. After her death, the child joined his father and stepmother in a secure family which provided better care. The judge held that this benefit had to be disregarded under section 4 and assessed dependency damages by a multiplier and multiplicand calculation.

The motorist appealed. The principal issues were whether section 4 required the benefits of the new family to be disregarded and whether the judge's valuation adequately reflected the uncertain quality, continuity and duration of the deceased mother's support.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously and award varied. Purchas LJ delivered the leading judgment. Ralph Gibson LJ agreed, although with some initial hesitation about the statutory construction. Sir David Croom-Johnson agreed with both judgments. Damages for lost services and financial support were reduced to £15,000, subject to adjustment for interest.

2. Section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, as substituted by the Administration of Justice Act 1982, requires benefits accruing from the deceased's estate “or otherwise” as a result of the death to be disregarded. Those words should receive their full scope. They include the benefits obtained by a dependent child through absorption into a family consisting of the surviving father, stepmother and siblings.

3. Section 3(3), which specifically excludes a widow's remarriage or prospects of remarriage, did not justify confining section 4 to direct pecuniary benefits. The legislative history showed a progressive statutory departure from the common law's net-loss principle. A narrow construction would have repealed longstanding exclusions of benefits without clear language. Parliament retained section 3(3) because remarriage remained a particularly significant policy matter.

4. The benefit of the child's new family therefore could not eliminate or reduce his dependency loss. The court still had to assess what services and financial support the deceased mother would probably have provided. That hypothetical assessment required proper allowance for the real possibility that her services would have lacked stability, continuity and duration.

5. The trial judge's £24,000 award for lost services was plainly too high. His multiplier of 12 did not adequately discount the uncertain prospect of continued maternal support. Given the lack of any steady prospect of support, a multiplier and multiplicand calculation was inappropriate. The court assessed lost services as a jury-style lump sum of £10,000.

6. The separate £5,000 award for probable financial support was generous but could not properly be disturbed. The total award was accordingly £15,000. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal: Allowed the defendant's appeal and varied Norland J's order by substituting damages of £15,000. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
• High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Worcester District Registry: Norland J, by judgment and order dated 13 July 1989, awarded the infant claimant £34,536 following an admitted-liability claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.