Steven Wilson v Ministry Of Justice

Damages for tort are assessed to provide full compensation, while maintaining fairness and proportionality between the claimant’s reasonable needs and the defendant’s liability.

Expert evidence must be independent, objective and confined to the expert’s field. Evidence affected by advocacy, selectivity or lack of independence may be given little or no weight.

Gratuitous care during hospital or residential treatment is recoverable only where visits provide services which the institution did not provide. A lump-sum award for loss of earnings remains unavailable unless the claimant proves that the injury caused some loss, even where precise quantification is difficult.

Future losses must reflect the assessed chances of future events, including the possibility that treatment may fail or become unnecessary.

The claimant suffered serious spinal, physical and psychiatric injuries after being attacked by another prisoner in a prison kitchen. The defendant admitted liability. Causation and quantum remained in dispute, including the claimant’s prognosis, rehabilitation, care, accommodation, urological treatment and past and future loss of earnings.

The court heard extensive lay and expert evidence. The principal issues were the weight to be given to competing expert evidence, the reasonableness and causation of claimed losses, the treatment of missed appointments, and the appropriate assessment of uncertain future needs.

1. Assessment of damages. Applying Livingston v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25, Heil v Rankin [2001] 2 QB 272 and Whiten v St George’s Healthcare [2011] EWHC 2066 (QB), damages had to provide full compensation for reasonable needs while avoiding disproportionate or unjust awards.
2. Expert evidence. Under CPR 35.3 and CPR 35.10, read with PD35 paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3, experts must assist the court independently, objectively and without acting as advocates. The court rejected or gave no weight to significant portions of the defendant’s spinal and physiotherapy evidence where the experts had been partisan, selective, had exceeded their expertise or had failed fairly to address contrary evidence. It preferred the independent evidence of Mr Selmi and Ms Bochkoltz.
3. Past gratuitous care. Applying Havenhand v Jeffrey [1997] EWCA Civ 1076, approved in Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1657, ordinary hospital or care-home visits based on family affection were not compensable unless they provided services which the institution did not provide. The claimant therefore recovered nothing for visits during hospital, residential-care or prison periods, but recovered care provided after release where the evidence established actual care and assistance.
4. Loss of earnings. Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority [1992] EWCA Civ 20 permitted a lump-sum approach where precise quantification was difficult, but did not remove the burden of proving that the injury caused some loss. Applying BXB v Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania [2020] EWHC 156 (QB), no past or future earnings award was made because legitimate but-for earnings were speculative and the claimant had not proved injury-caused loss.
5. Future contingencies. Applying Totham v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 97 (QB), future damages were adjusted to reflect the probability of treatment success, treatment failure and alternative treatment. The court made awards for future care, rehabilitation, accommodation, transport, medical and urological needs, while avoiding duplication and over-compensation.
6. The final damages figure, after set-off of agreed sums, benefits, interim payments and interest, was £5,404,559.05.