Richardson v Howie

Damages for assault may compensate both physical injury and injury to feelings, including indignity, distress, humiliation, anger and indignation. The malicious or spiteful character of the attack, and the assailant’s motive, may increase that injury and therefore the compensation due.

Such compensation is ordinarily part of general damages. It should no longer be characterised as aggravated damages, save possibly in a wholly exceptional case. Aggravated damages in this context remain compensatory and must not become a means of punishing the defendant.

The claimant obtained judgment in the Brighton County Court for assault and battery arising from a bottle attack during a volatile relationship. The judge awarded £10,000, comprising £5,000 in general damages and £5,000 in aggravated damages, but made few findings about the injuries and gave no reasons for the aggravated award.

The defendant appealed against the quantum and the award of aggravated damages. The central questions were whether injury to the claimant’s feelings should be compensated through general or aggravated damages, and what overall award was appropriate for the permanent scarring and injured feelings.

1. Appeal allowed. The award of £10,000 was far too high. The Court substituted £4,500 in general damages for the scarring, injured feelings and other consequences of the assault. It set aside the judge’s judgment and all his orders as to costs.

2. Aggravated damages for assault are compensatory in essence. The victim is entitled to compensation for indignity, mental suffering, humiliation, distress, anger and indignation caused by the attack. The circumstances in which an injury is inflicted may affect the extent of that compensable injury. The award must remain compensatory and must not reflect punishment or merely the court’s disapproval of the defendant’s conduct.

3. Compensation for injury to feelings should ordinarily be characterised as part of general damages, rather than as aggravated damages. A separate aggravated award might remain possible in a wholly exceptional case. This attack, although spiteful, irrational and committed with a weapon capable of causing permanent scarring, did not approach that exceptional category.

4. The malicious or spiteful nature of an assault, and the assailant’s motive, may heighten the victim’s injured feelings. The resulting increase in compensation should ordinarily be included within general damages. Treating the award in that way reduces the risk of confusing compensation with punishment.

5. The trial judge had neither explained the aggravated award nor made adequate findings about the claimant’s injuries and the visibility of her scars. Nevertheless, remittal was disproportionate given the sums involved. On the written evidence, the permanent scars fell within the less significant category, and £4,500 was an appropriate overall compensatory award.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed. The £10,000 damages award was replaced by £4,500 in general damages, and the trial judge’s orders as to costs were set aside: [2004] EWCA Civ 1127.
2. Brighton County Court: HH Judge Kennedy QC found for the claimant on assault and awarded £10,000, including £5,000 described as aggravated damages. He refused permission to appeal.