Noble v Owens

Damages for multiple serious injuries should be assessed by taking an overall view of the claimant’s condition, using guideline brackets as assistance while guarding against double recovery. Future losses must reflect the treatment and accommodation that the claimant would reasonably be expected to accept or use. A claimant is not required to recreate precisely the same holidays or lifestyle enjoyed before the accident, but should receive the reasonable additional cost of obtaining an equivalent benefit. Where proceedings began before the relevant statutory change, the court may prefer a lump-sum award if periodic payments cannot be reviewed to reflect material improvement in future conditions.

The defendant admitted liability for a road accident in which the claimant suffered severe orthopaedic, urological and psychiatric injuries. The trial concerned quantum, including general damages, future treatment, loss of earnings, gratuitous care, accommodation, holidays, equipment, transport and the form of the award. The central issues were the proper assessment of future needs, the reasonableness of proposed treatment and expenditure, and whether damages should be paid as a lump sum or by periodical payments.

1. General damages. In a multiple-injury case the court should take an overall view, assisted by the updated JSB Guidelines while avoiding double counting. The claimant’s condition was comparable to severe paraplegia, and an award of £157,500 was made for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.
2. Future treatment and care. The claimant would reasonably be expected to undergo a urodynamic evaluation and indicated non-invasive or drug treatment, and to try a Convene if required. His psychiatric disorder and care needs were likely to persist for the long term. A long-term buddy and outside support were therefore reasonably required. Gratuitous care was valued at the appropriate Spinal Point 8 home-help rate, subject to a 25% discount.
3. Accommodation. The claimant was entitled to the reasonable additional cost of suitable accommodation and necessary adaptations. The assessment was based on a suitable generic property rather than excessive features of particular properties. No credit was required for a benefit enjoyed by his partner or for deemed rent where the factual and relational circumstances did not justify it.
4. Holidays and equipment. Recovery was not limited to reproducing the precise pre-accident holiday. The claimant was entitled to the reasonable additional cost of annual travel to a warm and scenic location, together with reasonable weekend breaks. Equipment was recoverable where it met an accident-related need, but claims lacking demonstrated necessity were refused.
5. Form of award. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r. 41.6, a lump sum was appropriate. The proceedings began before the power to review periodical payments for significant improvement became available under Damages (Variation of Periodical Payments) Order 2005.
6. The parties were given liberty to apply if they could not agree the final calculation.

First-instance judgment on the assessment of damages following the defendant’s admitted negligence. No earlier judicial decision in the same proceedings is stated.