Pankhurst v White & Anor

Damages for personal injury must provide full compensation for reasonable needs, while avoiding overlap between heads of loss. Where reasonable options exist, the claimant need not choose the cheapest, but must act reasonably and prudently. Accommodation claims require a two-stage inquiry: whether the property purchase was reasonable and, if so, whether particular expenditure was excessive. The assessment must reflect the claimant’s actual pre-accident circumstances and lifestyle, rather than an earlier and materially different standard of living. A claimant cannot recover continuing investment income where an income-producing asset has merely been converted into another asset of equivalent value. Where future expenditure is highly uncertain or an elaborate care and travel scheme is impracticable, a broad-brush lump-sum assessment may be appropriate.

The claimant suffered catastrophic spinal injuries and hypoxic brain injury in a road traffic accident. Liability had been determined in his favour, and the High Court was required to assess damages. Most heads of loss, including care, were agreed. The contested issues concerned general damages, life expectancy, investment income, accommodation, and over-winter trips.

The claimant had previously lived permanently in a luxury motor home and derived income from investment properties. After the accident he sold those properties and bought Archers Post, which was affected by unresolved subsidence and was subsequently demolished and rebuilt. He claimed substantial accommodation costs, continuing investment income, and the cost of travelling abroad with a large care team.

1. General principles. The claimant was entitled to full compensation, so far as money could achieve it, but each head of loss had to be assessed separately and without overlap. Damages were confined to reasonable requirements and reasonable needs. The standard of reasonableness was not high, given that the claimant had been placed in a position of need by the tortfeasor, but it included acting prudently.
2. Life expectancy. The court preferred the evidence of Mr Tromans to that of Mr Gardner and assessed life expectancy at 19 years from age 53, allowing for the claimant’s unusually high-quality care package. The whole-life multiplier was 14.76.
3. Investment income. The claimant had not lost his income-producing asset when he sold the Week Street properties. He had converted it into cash and invested the proceeds in Archers Post. There was therefore no recoverable future loss of investment income. Past loss attributable to additional management expenses was assessed at £35,500. The proposed claim also could not be used to overcome the shortfall associated with the Roberts v Johnstone accommodation approach.
4. Accommodation. The assessment involved two stages: whether the purchase was reasonable, and, only if so, whether particular expenditure was excessive. Archers Post was unsuitable for adaptation and extension in the relevant sense. The purchase was patently imprudent because subsidence, structural repairs, insurance, and rebuilding costs had not been resolved before exchange. Damages were therefore assessed by reference to a notional generic property costing £500,000, with £235,000 for adaptations, subject to betterment and other appropriate credits. Past accommodation damages were £253,875 and future accommodation damages were £104,743.
5. Over-winter trips. The proposed scheme involving twelve carers and extensive air travel was fanciful and impracticable. The claim was also excessive when measured against the claimant’s reasonable pre-accident circumstances. Because the frequency, duration, staffing, and cost of future trips were uncertain, a multiplier-and-multiplicand calculation was rejected. A lump sum of £160,000 was awarded.
6. The total lump-sum award, subject to interest, was £2,344,077, together with agreed periodical payments of £260,000 annually for future care.