Redhead v Rawcliffe

In assessing damages for catastrophic injury, a court should not reduce the award for future care merely because a local authority may provide direct payments. The defendant must produce evidence establishing a reliable basis for estimating the funding likely to be available. Changing local-authority policies, finite resources and competing claims may make such an assessment impossible. A deduction for gratuitous care is inappropriate where the hourly rates claimed are already materially below commercial rates. Speculative public funding cannot be used to transfer the tortfeasor’s liability to the State.

The claimant suffered severe brain injuries after being struck by the defendant’s car. Liability was agreed at 95%, and the remaining issue was the assessment of damages. The principal dispute concerned the extent of the claimant’s lifelong care and support needs, including whether the award should be reduced to reflect possible local-authority funding of domiciliary care.

The court also assessed claims for earnings, case management, therapy, equipment and other future losses. The parties had not resolved whether damages should be paid as a lump sum or by periodical payments.

1. Assessment of care. The claimant required continuing support, but his needs varied over time. The court assessed separate periods covering his remaining time at college, the period before he lived independently, and the period after he moved into his own accommodation. His reasonable needs included sleep-in care at night and substantial daytime support, but not 24-hour care.
2. Gratuitous care. A discount reflecting the non-commercial nature of care may be appropriate where commercial rates are used as the starting point. Here, the hourly rates for care by the claimant’s mother were already substantially below commercial rates. A further Housecroft deduction was therefore inappropriate.
3. Local-authority funding. The statutory scheme required Lancashire to assess the claimant’s needs and permitted direct payments. The court accepted the reasoning in Freeman v Lockett [2006] EWHC 102 (QB) that there was no principled basis for estimating funding reliably over the claimant’s lifetime. The defendant had not produced evidence of Lancashire’s current policy. The award for future care was therefore not reduced for possible direct payments.
4. The approach in Sowden v Lodge [2005] 1 WLR 2129, concerning residential accommodation, did not govern this domiciliary-care case.
5. Damages were assessed under the various heads considered, subject to updating, the agreed 5% reduction for contributory liability, and resolution of outstanding calculations. No global award was made at that stage. The parties were permitted to restore the action, including to address periodical payments and costs.