FZO v Adams & Anor

In assessing damages for prolonged sexual abuse causing severe psychiatric injury, the court must consider both the psychiatric consequences and the immediate effects of the abuse. The award may include aggravated damages where the defendant’s conduct caused additional humiliation, degradation or injury to dignity, but the total award must remain compensatory and avoid double counting.

Where employment history and future prospects contain substantial imponderables, the court may use a broad multiplier-and-multiplicand assessment rather than a purely mathematical calculation. A Part 36 additional amount under CPR 36.17(4)(d) is not itself a sum awarded for the purposes of interest under CPR 36.17(4)(a).

The claimant had previously succeeded on limitation and liability in proceedings arising from prolonged sexual abuse by the first defendant. The second defendant was vicariously liable. The earlier judgment found that the abuse caused complex PTSD and prolonged mental-health difficulties.

This judgment determined quantum, including general damages, aggravated damages, past and future loss of earnings, treatment costs, travel, subrogated claims and interest. The court also addressed the defendants’ application for permission to appeal, a stay, and the treatment of a Part 36 additional amount for interest.

1. Damages for psychiatric injury and abuse. The claimant’s complex PTSD fell within the severe category of psychiatric damage, warranting an award towards the upper end of the relevant bracket. In assessing pain, suffering and loss of amenity, the court considered both the psychiatric effects and the immediate effects of the abuse. Aggravated damages were justified by the exploitation of the claimant’s vulnerability, the degrading nature and extent of the abuse, and the resulting loss of self-esteem and dignity. The award remained compensatory, not punitive, and was assessed with care to avoid double counting.
2. Loss of earnings. The claimant bore the burden of establishing each head of loss. Given the uncertainties in his employment history, the absence of evidence from relevant employers and the lack of reliable evidence about future employment, a precise mathematical calculation was impossible. The court nevertheless preferred a broad multiplier-and-multiplicand assessment to a global Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority approach. The calculation involved reasonable judgment and approximation, including assumptions about tax, contingencies and the likelihood of continued employment.
3. The court rejected the contention that the claimant had failed to mitigate loss by changing treatment before the proceedings ended. It made no separate award for loss of congenial employment, taking the relevant impact into account in the general damages assessment. It awarded damages totalling £1,112,390.70, subject to agreed interest.
4. Part 36 interest. The additional amount payable under CPR 36.17(4)(d) was additional to the award and the interest provided for by CPR 36.17(4)(a). It was not itself a sum awarded on which interest was payable.
5. Permission to appeal was refused. Time for appealing was extended to 4 pm on 17 June 2019. A stay was granted pending determination of any appeal, with the court recognising both the delay to treatment and the risk that sums paid might not be recoverable.

The judgment itself states that liability and limitation had been determined in an earlier judgment handed down on 20 December 2018. This judgment determined quantum and related applications at first instance.