Hussein v William Hill Group

A claimant who establishes liability must still prove injury and consequential loss on the balance of probabilities. Where the evidence does not establish physical or psychological injury, loss of earnings, or property loss caused by the defendant’s conduct, only nominal damages may be awarded. The court may reject inconsistent and unsupported evidence when assessing causation and quantum.

The claimant, a litigant in person, claimed damages after being struck by an employee of the defendants at a bookmakers’ premises. He alleged physical and psychiatric injury, loss of earnings, loss of a watch and slander. The defendants conceded that he was entitled to judgment and damages, but disputed the extent of the assault, the alleged injuries, causation and the claimed losses.

The court therefore had to determine what assault had occurred, whether it caused compensable physical or psychological injury, and whether the claimant had proved the claimed financial and property losses.

1. The defendants conceded that the claimant was entitled to judgment and damages. The court therefore determined the amount of damages rather than liability.
2. The claimant’s accounts of the assault, his injuries and their continuing effects were materially inconsistent. The court preferred the evidence of Ms Sammut, supported by the video evidence, and found that there had probably been one blow, possibly two, to the right upper arm area. It was not satisfied that there had been a blow to the head or face.
3. The court rejected the alleged psychiatric injury. The evidence did not establish post-traumatic stress disorder or significant mental impairment. Any genuine symptoms were more likely attributable to the claimant’s age and pre-existing heart condition and diabetes than to the assault.
4. The claim for loss of earnings was not proved. The court accepted evidence that the claimant had continued to work after the assault and rejected his assertion that the assault had caused the loss of his business or clients.
5. The claim for the watch was also rejected. The claimant had not established that he was wearing a watch of the alleged value or that it was lost as a result of the assault.
6. Although the claimant was entitled to judgment, he had proved no substantial compensable injury or loss. The court awarded nominal damages of £50 in total and invited written submissions on costs. The judge also indicated that the judgment might be sent to relevant professional bodies and that the papers might be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.