Mehmetemin v Farrell

In assessing damages for serious personal injury, compensation must be full but remain fair, reasonable and just to both parties. Gratuitous care provided by a relative is generally discounted by 25% to reflect the absence of tax and national insurance liabilities, even where the relative has given up work. A service required because of the injury, such as dog-walking, is recoverable when performed gratuitously by a relative, provided the claim does not compensate shared pleasure or duplicate another head of loss. Future care must be assessed from the claimant’s individual needs and the evidence, including likely effects of treatment and ageing. Losses must be proved and may be rejected where they are too remote, unreasonable or disproportionate.

Liability for a road traffic accident causing serious orthopaedic, psychological and other injuries had been admitted. The trial concerned assessment of damages, including general damages, past and future care, gratuitous care, assistance with dog-walking, treatment, equipment, mobility, holidays and alleged additional food costs.

The principal disputes concerned the effect of agreed treatment and orthotics on future care needs, the appropriate division between commercial and gratuitous care, deductions from gratuitous care, the effect of ageing, and whether particular consequential losses were recoverable. The court also considered whether Carer’s Allowance was deductible and whether a relative’s dog-walking services constituted recoverable care.

1. Overall assessment. Judgment was given for the Claimant for £963,793.97. The court assessed damages globally where necessary and directed the parties to calculate agreed or consequential figures in accordance with its findings.
2. General principles. Compensation must be full, but fair, reasonable and just to the injured person and the defendant alike: Heil v Rankin [2001] 2 QB 272. The threshold for recoverable care is care beyond what a husband would ordinarily have done for his wife: Giambrone v Sunworld Holidays Ltd [2004] EWCA (Civ) 158.
3. Gratuitous care. A 25% deduction was appropriate for gratuitous care. The deduction reflected the fact that tax and national insurance were neither relevant nor payable when care was provided by a relative, even where that relative had given up employment. Housecroft v Burnett [1986] 1 AER 332 did not establish that the deduction was unavailable in such circumstances. The approach in Whiten v St George’s Healthcare Trust [2011] EWHC 2066 and Totham v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 97 was applied.
4. Dog-walking and shared activities. A relative’s provision of a service which the injured claimant could no longer perform was recoverable in principle, whether commercial or gratuitous. Dog-walking was therefore recoverable, but the award was reduced to exclude shared pleasure and possible double recovery through ordinary care claims.
5. Additional food costs and benefits. The claim for extra food costs failed because it was not proved and was too remote, unreasonable and disproportionate. The judge additionally stated that, had the loss been established, Carer’s Allowance would have been deductible despite the absence of a pleaded deduction, following Massey v Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust [2007] EWHC 317.
6. Future care. The court assessed care by reference to the Claimant’s individual disabilities, likely limited improvement from treatment and orthotics, her need for community access, and probable deterioration with ageing. It allowed different periods and mixtures of commercial and gratuitous care, with additional care from age 75.

not stated in the judgment.