AT & Ors v Dulghieru & Anor

Damages for prolonged trafficking, false imprisonment and coerced sexual exploitation may be assessed globally where the injuries are closely connected. Differences in duration should be reflected fairly, but not by a purely mathematical reduction.

General damages for psychiatric injury must be kept distinct from aggravated damages for humiliation, degradation and injury to feelings, avoiding double recovery. Aggravated damages are compensatory, not punitive. Exemplary damages may be awarded where defendants deliberately exploit claimants for profit in cynical disregard of their rights, particularly where compensation alone does not prevent unjust enrichment.

The claimants, four Moldovan women, brought proceedings alleging that the defendants had conspired to traffic them into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation. The defendants or their agents deceived them into travelling, confined them, threatened them and forced them to work as prostitutes. The defendants had been convicted and imprisoned, but did not appear at the civil assessment hearing.

The court assessed damages for psychiatric injury, coerced sexual activity, false imprisonment, aggravated damages and exemplary damages. The central issues were the appropriate valuation of the several heads of loss, the treatment of Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority payments, and whether the defendants’ conduct justified aggravated and exemplary awards.

1. The court assessed the claimants’ experiences globally under pain, suffering and loss of amenity, covering chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive symptoms, coerced sexual activity and false imprisonment. The court used the JSB Guidelines For The Assessment Of General Damages In Personal Injury Cases as guidance. The awards were £125,000 for AT, £117,000 for NT, £82,000 for ML and £97,000 for AK.
2. Although ML and AK experienced unwanted sexual encounters for about one month rather than two, the reduction was not calculated arithmetically because the earlier stages of the abuse were likely to have had the greatest effect. ML’s shorter period of detention was also reflected.
3. Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority payments were not deducted. Paragraph 49 of the 2001 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme prevented double recovery by requiring repayment to the Authority where another payment was later received. The defendants could not rely heavily on payments they had neither made nor offered to repay.
4. Aggravated damages were appropriate because the defendants’ conduct was insulting, arrogant, degrading and contemptuous of the claimants’ autonomy. The court separated injury to feelings, humiliation, loss of pride and dignity from psychiatric injury, while avoiding double compensation. Awards were £35,000 each for AT and ML and £30,000 each for NT and AK.
5. Exemplary damages were available under the second category in Rookes v Barnard. The defendants had deliberately acted regardless of the claimants’ rights to generate substantial profits, and the compensatory awards did not sufficiently prevent the wrongdoing from paying. The rationale was prevention of unjust enrichment, not punishment. A total of £60,000 was awarded and divided equally between the claimants.
6. The total awards, for which the defendants were jointly and severally liable, were £175,000 for AT, £162,000 for NT, £132,000 for ML and £142,000 for AK. No award was made for claimed therapy costs because they were unsupported by evidence.

First-instance assessment of damages. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.