BJM v Nathan Eyre & Ors

In assessing damages for abuse-related psychiatric injury, the court should adopt a broad-brush approach where several possible causes contribute to the claimant’s condition. Precise percentage apportionment is generally inappropriate. The court must assess responsibility on the whole evidence, including the claimant’s pre-existing vulnerability and the abuse’s aggravating or compounding effect.

Aggravated damages are compensatory, not punitive, and must avoid double recovery. Additional expenditure caused by maladaptive behaviour is recoverable only where the injury leaves the claimant with no real choice but to engage in that behaviour.

The claimant sought damages against four defendants for sexual and physical abuse between 2001 and 2003. Liability had been established by default, and the hearing concerned assessment of damages. The claimant relied on psychiatric and educational evidence concerning post-traumatic stress disorder, personality disorder, alcohol and drug misuse, impaired education and loss of earnings.

The principal issues were causation, the effect of pre-existing vulnerability, the appropriate awards for psychiatric injury and aggravated damages, and whether excess alcohol expenditure was recoverable.

1. The claimant’s post-traumatic stress disorder was wholly attributable to the abuse. The abuse also made a material contribution to his borderline personality traits and alcohol and drug misuse. Some difficulties, including vulnerability to depression, relationship problems and intermittent substance misuse, would probably have occurred without the abuse.

2. The court applied the broad-brush approach described in Various Claimants v Flintshire County Council and approved in C v Flintshire County Council [2001] EWCA Civ 302. It was inappropriate to express responsibility in precise percentage terms. The assessment had to be based on the whole evidence and was necessarily a matter of judgment. The claimant’s pre-existing vulnerability did not displace the defendants’ responsibility, particularly where that vulnerability had been exploited.

3. The claimant would probably have obtained educational or vocational qualifications and worked as a chef or cook but for the truancy, distress and upheaval caused by the abuse. Damages were assessed broadly to reflect both the injuries attributable to the defendants and the difficulties that would probably have arisen in any event.

4. The severity and duration of the abuse, its coercive and commercial character, the claimant’s loss of dignity, and the defendants’ subsequent denial of wrongdoing justified aggravated damages. Applying Rowlands v Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police [2007] 1WLR 1065, the award was compensatory and had to avoid double recovery.

5. The claim for excess alcohol expenditure failed. Following Eagle v Chambers [2004] EWCA Civ 1033, such expenditure would be recoverable only if the medical evidence showed that the injury left the claimant with no real choice but to increase his consumption. The claimant retained a significant degree of choice.

6. Judgment was entered for £209,450, together with £7,155.26 interest. The defendants were jointly and severally liable for the award and the claimant’s costs.

The judgment was a first-instance assessment of damages following default judgment against the four original defendants. No appeal history is stated in the judgment.