Simmons v Castle

The Court of Appeal has a continuing responsibility to maintain general-damages guidelines. It may revise them to reflect relevant social and legal change, not merely inflation. Although such guidelines are not rules of law or practice, their consistent application promotes justice and settlement.

The court declared that, for judgments given on or after 1 April 2013, general damages should be increased by 10%. The increase covers pain, suffering and loss of amenity in personal-injury claims, nuisance, defamation, and other torts causing individual suffering, inconvenience or distress.

The claimant was injured when the respondent negligently drove a car into his motorcycle. In the Derby County Court, the Recorder awarded general and special damages totalling £24,712.72, but declined provisional damages and compensation for specified future employment and pecuniary-loss risks.

After permission to appeal was granted, the respondent made a Part 36 offer. The parties agreed that the appeal should be allowed by a variation which preserved the award but permitted a further application for damages if a defined medical deterioration caused recoverable loss of earnings. The Court of Appeal was asked to approve that settlement. It also used the occasion to determine the future approach to general damages following the civil-costs reforms.

1. The settlement was approved. Its terms required the appeal to be allowed by an agreed variation of the County Court order, so the Court of Appeal’s consent was required. The court considered the agreed general damages of £20,000 and special damages appropriate. The variation permitted a further application only if the stated risk of fulminant septicaemia caused the specified recoverable loss.

2. The court stated that it has both power and a positive duty to monitor and, where appropriate, alter guideline rates for general damages. The assessment of non-economic loss is necessarily artificial and conventional. Consistent guidelines remain important to justice and settlement. Guidelines are not rules of law or practice, but parties and advisers should be able to expect their application by trial judges.

3. The court held that this responsibility extends beyond personal-injury claims to general damages in all tort claims. Changes in society may justify an adjustment; the exercise is not confined to changes in money values.

4. Against the background of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the court regarded the 10% uplift as an integral element of a coherent civil-costs reform package. It was appropriate to announce the change in advance, despite the absence of argument on the point, because there had been extensive consultation and public consideration.

5. The court therefore declared that, from 1 April 2013, the proper level of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, nuisance, defamation, and other torts causing suffering, inconvenience or distress to individuals would be 10% higher than before. The rule applies where judgment is given after that date. Had judgment in this action been given then, the appropriate general damages would have been £22,000 rather than £20,000.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039, the court approved the parties’ settlement and allowed the appeal through an agreed variation of the order below.

• Derby County Court, sitting in Northampton — Mr Recorder Burns awarded £20,000 general damages and £2,730.37 special damages, with interest, and refused provisional damages and the claimed compensation for specified future risks.