Grant v The Secretary of State for Transport

Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, dependency damages compensate pecuniary loss caused by death. The assessment may include the economic value of services which are difficult to replace commercially, including the claimant’s loss of time and convenience in arranging replacement services. It does not permit compensation for grief, companionship, affection or other purely non-pecuniary loss, apart from statutory bereavement damages.

A claimant must prove the loss and its extent. Where the deceased’s work contributed to the value of inherited property, the recoverable loss is the value of the deceased’s services, not profits derived from the property itself. Awards for gratuitous care by relatives may include emotional support where it forms part of care necessitated by the injury, but hospital-visit claims remain exceptional and modest.

The claimant, the widow and executrix of Douglas Grant’s estate, sued the Secretary of State for Transport as successor to the liabilities of the British Railways Board. Liability for asbestos exposure causing mesothelioma was admitted. The trial concerned quantum under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.

The disputed heads included damages for pain and suffering, gratuitous care, business and funeral expenses, income dependency, domestic and business services dependency, future development income and loss of intangible benefits. The central issues were the proper valuation of those losses and whether non-pecuniary or convenience-based losses were recoverable.

1. Outcome. The court assessed the disputed heads of loss and made awards under both Acts. The judgment left the final figure for the development-related dependency to further submissions because the adopted valuation method had not been advanced at trial.
2. Care and assistance. The authorities did not require a distinction between physical and emotional support where both formed part of care caused by the injury. A stop-watch calculation was inappropriate where the claimant had to remain available for full-time care. The court nevertheless reduced the claim for overlap, excessive hospital and hospice attendance, and unrelated assistance, awarding £29,000.
3. Proof and dependency. The claimant had to prove loss and its extent. The value of a dependency was assessed at death. Inherited property did not prevent recovery where the claim was for the value of the deceased’s labour or management, rather than income derived from the property. The development claim could therefore proceed, but only for the value of Mr Grant’s contribution. That contribution was assessed by reference to replacement consultancy costs, discounted to reflect the need for an experienced developer.
4. Income and services. The claimant could recover dependency on pension income despite losses made by the golf club. The court applied the conventional dependency ratio of 66.67%, rejecting reliance on an 85% ratio unsupported by comparable evidence. Awards were also made for domestic services and business services, subject to evidential and causation limits.
5. Intangible benefits. Apart from bereavement damages, the 1976 Act did not permit compensation for emotional support, kindness or companionship as such. It did permit compensation for pecuniary losses inadequately captured by commercial replacement costs, including the value of time and convenience spent arranging replacement domestic services. The court awarded £2,500 on that basis.
6. Other heads. The court awarded £92,500 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, £5,000 for business expenses, £1,200 for a headstone and rejected the funeral-reception claim.