B v London Borough of Ealing & Anor

Damages for childhood abuse must reflect the severity and frequency of the abuse, recognised psychiatric injury, and the causal contribution of other factors. Where conventional multiplier-and-multiplicand calculations are unsuitable because of substantial uncertainty, the court may make a broad-brush lump-sum assessment. The assessment must avoid double recovery and should reflect the medical evidence on causation and apportionment. The cost of excessive consumption may be recoverable where medical evidence establishes that the injury caused the consumption, leaving the claimant with no real choice but to consume excessively.

The claimant sought damages for personal injuries intentionally inflicted by her father during childhood. Her claim against the local authority for alleged negligence by social workers was stayed. Judgment had been obtained against the father, who took no part in the proceedings, so the hearing concerned quantum only.

The heads of loss were pain, suffering and loss of amenity, past and future loss of earnings, treatment costs, travelling expenses and the cost of excessive alcohol consumption. The central issues were the assessment of loss where causation was complex and uncertain, and whether expenditure attributable to excessive alcohol use could be recovered.

1. Assessment of general damages. The claimant’s daily assaults and recognised psychiatric disorders justified a substantially higher award than in Jake Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] EWHC 2968 (QB). The award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity was £33,500. The assessment took account of other causal factors, including a family history of anxiety, and guarded against double recovery.
2. Broad-brush assessment. The conventional multiplier-and-multiplicand approach was inappropriate for past and future earnings because of the many imponderables. Lump sums were therefore assessed by reference to the evidence as a whole, including the claimant’s children, family support, educational history, employment prospects and the expert’s assessment that abuse accounted for 10% to 20% of her employment difficulties. Past loss was assessed at £11,000 and future loss at £22,000.
3. Causation and apportionment. The approach in Various Claimants v Flintshire County Council was helpful. The court accepted that causation was multifactorial and adopted a 15% contribution for past earnings loss and a 7.5% contribution for excessive alcohol consumption.
4. Alcohol expenditure. Adopting the approach in Eagle v Chambers [2004] EWCA Civ 1033, excessive consumption could constitute recoverable damage where medical evidence established that the injury caused it. The evidence satisfied that requirement. The claimant recovered £1,072 for alcohol, together with interest, and £2,800 for treatment and travelling costs.