Manna v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Damages for personal injury must meet the claimant’s reasonable needs, assessed in the circumstances of the individual case. A defendant cannot require adoption of the cheapest option where the claimant’s choice falls within the range of potentially reasonable options. Past family care does not justify reducing an award for privately funded commercial care where the family member is not obliged to continue providing it. Where challenging behaviour is unpredictable and may escalate without an identifiable trigger, a care regime must address that risk rather than rely solely on advance planning and flexible additional support. A second accommodation claim may be recoverable where the evidence establishes a genuine and continuing need for contact with another caregiver, but such an award depends on the particular circumstances and creates no wider precedent.

The claimant suffered severe and permanent brain injury at birth. Liability had previously been compromised, with judgment entered for him at 50% of the full value of the claim. This trial concerned the assessment of damages.

The principal disputes concerned future care and case management, occupational therapy, equipment, transport, accommodation, multipliers, pension loss and the treatment of an interim payment. The central issues were the extent and permanence of the claimant’s behavioural difficulties, whether his violent outbursts were predictable and manageable by one carer, and whether accommodation should be funded to facilitate contact with his natural father.

1. Reasonableness and mitigation. The claimant was entitled to damages meeting his reasonable needs. Where a choice falls within the range of potentially reasonable options, the defendant cannot reduce liability by pointing to a cheaper alternative within that range. The privately purchased adapted Land Rover was reasonably selected after professional advice and its cost was recoverable.
2. Interim payment. Under CPR 25.7, the payment was an interim payment of damages and the order did not allocate it between general and special damages. The usual assumption was that it funded expenditure forming part of the special-damages claim. Credit was therefore given against interest on special damages.
3. Multipliers. Table 28 of the Ogden Tables was appropriate where the agreed life expectancy already reflected the claimant’s mortality risks. Using life multipliers would produce a double discount. The court adopted a multiplier of 22.81 for future earnings and allowed the associated employer pension contributions.
4. Future care. The evidence established that the claimant’s challenging behaviour was cyclical and that violent outbursts remained unpredictable. Recognised triggers could sometimes be anticipated, but could not reliably be avoided or defused, and some outbursts occurred without an identifiable trigger. Flexible double-up care could not safely accommodate that risk. Two carers were therefore required throughout the day, together with sleeping-night care and provision for waking-night care when required.
5. The claimant’s mother’s past devotion and ability to provide care did not justify relying on her as the second carer. A tortfeasor could not avoid the cost of commercial care on the basis that a family member had previously provided it.
6. Accommodation. The claim for a principal adapted home was assessed by reference to the evidence supporting a £500,000 purchase price. The value of the existing family home was not deducted. A second property for contact with the claimant’s natural father was recoverable in principle on the particular evidence of longstanding shared care, genuine intended contact and the claimant’s best interests. The judge expressly stated that this did not establish any wider precedent.

First-instance assessment of damages following an earlier liability compromise approved by Swift J. The judgment does not provide a citation for that earlier order.