CAX v PQR

In assessing damages for childhood sexual abuse, the conventional multiplier-and-multiplicand method should normally be used for past and future earnings where the claimant proves, on the balance of probabilities, the likely career and earnings pattern with and without the abuse. A broad-brush award under Blamire is appropriate only where the evidential uncertainties are such that the conventional calculation cannot properly be made. General damages must reflect the nature, severity and duration of the abuse and its psychiatric consequences. Aggravated damages are compensatory and must be assessed with general damages to avoid double recovery. Where other factors contribute to psychiatric injury, the court should make a principled adjustment, but should not invent an unsupported percentage apportionment.

Judgment had been entered in default after the Defendant failed to acknowledge service or serve a defence. The hearing concerned assessment of the damages payable to the Claimant for prolonged sexual abuse by the Defendant, her maternal grandfather, during childhood. The claims were advanced in assault and trespass to the person and included general damages, aggravated damages, past and future earnings loss, increased university fees, travel costs and future psychological treatment.

The Defendant appeared in person, did not cross-examine the Claimant or her witnesses, gave no evidence and made no closing submissions. The central issues were the appropriate assessment of psychiatric injury and injury to feelings, whether the Claimant had proved delayed career progression and related earnings losses, and whether a Blamire-type broad-brush approach was required.

1. General and aggravated damages. The Claimant had suffered serious abuse and severe, prolonged psychiatric injury. The assessment took account of the abuse’s nature, severity, duration, the Claimant’s age, its effect on her life and relationships, and her prognosis. The appropriate award before adjustment was £85,000. A modest adjustment was made for other, unquantified contributing factors, resulting in £80,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.
2. Aggravated damages were compensatory, not punitive. They were assessed alongside general damages so that the total award remained fair and avoided double recovery. The Defendant’s flagrant conduct, breach of trust, manipulation, lack of remorse and conduct of the proceedings justified a further £15,000.
3. Earnings loss. The multiplier-and-multiplicand approach should normally be adopted unless the evidence leaves the court unable to determine the likely career and earnings patterns. The burden remained on the Claimant. Here, the Claimant had established on the balance of probabilities that she would have pursued social work ten years earlier, and the evidence was sufficiently reliable to permit conventional calculations. No Blamire-type discount was required for either past or future loss.
4. The Claimant therefore recovered £94,628.09 for past earnings, £83,652.89 for future earnings, £3,750 for increased tuition fees, £126 for past travel, £11,653.93 for CBT and £982.80 for future travel. The total award, excluding interest, was £289,793.71. Interest, costs and remaining matters were adjourned for further hearing.