JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Damages for personal injury should provide fair and reasonable full compensation, subject to reasonableness and proportionality in each head of loss. An adult claimant whose life expectancy is shortened may recover loss of earnings and pension for the “lost years”, even without dependants, provided the loss can be assessed on the evidence. The restriction applied to a catastrophically injured child in Croke v Wiseman did not govern an adult claimant capable of social interaction. The conventional Roberts v Johnstone approach to accommodation remained binding. On the facts, the current negative discount rate produced a nil award for the capital cost of special accommodation, although reasonable adaptation and associated costs remained recoverable.

The claimant suffered severe cerebral palsy and cognitive impairment following negligent delivery. Liability was admitted. The proceedings concerned the assessment and approval of damages, with substantial agreement between the parties but disputes concerning future loss.

The principal legal issues were whether the claimant could recover pension loss during the “lost years”, despite having been injured at birth and having no established dependants, and how the cost of special accommodation should be assessed after the Lord Chancellor reduced the personal injury discount rate to -0.75%. The court also determined disputed costs of care, therapy, equipment, transport, accommodation adaptations and Court of Protection management.

1. General approach. Damages were to provide compensation as nearly as possible in full, but each head and amount had to be reasonable, fair and proportionate. The relevant circumstances included the relationship between expenditure and the benefit to the claimant.
2. Lost years. The principles in Pickett v British Rail Engineering and Gammell v Wilson permitted recovery of loss of earnings during working years which the claimant would have lived but for the defendant’s negligence. A deduction had to be made for living expenses which could not form part of the claimant’s estate. The same principle applied to pension loss.
3. Effect of Croke v Wiseman. Although binding, Croke was concerned with a catastrophically injured child who could never have dependants. Its policy considerations did not apply to this adult claimant, who could engage socially and whose prospects of forming a relationship could be assessed on the evidence. The lost-years claim therefore succeeded. The pension multiplicand for the lost years was reduced by one half for living expenses.
4. Accommodation. The court was bound by Roberts v Johnstone. That approach treated the claimant’s loss as the income from capital invested in suitable accommodation. Applying the current negative discount rate, no risk-free positive return was shown, so the award for the capital cost of accommodation was nil. Adaptation, relocation, running and furnishing costs remained recoverable where reasonable.
5. Other losses. Two waking carers were required at night. Lifelong physiotherapy included a modest water-based element, but not a home hydrotherapy pool. Reasonable equipment, transport, holiday, assistive technology and deputyship costs were awarded, with speculative or disproportionate items rejected.
6. The agreed sums were approved and the total recovery was assessed by reference to the accompanying schedule, with periodical payments for care and case management.