ABC & Anor v XYZ

In an uncontested assessment of damages for personal injuries caused by prolonged domestic abuse, the court assessed psychiatric injury by reference to the most appropriate overlapping category in the Judicial College Guidelines and the severity, duration and consequences of the abuse. Where future earning loss was too uncertain for a conventional multiplier and multiplicand, a Smith v Manchester-style award was appropriate. Under the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, responsibility for recoverable benefits rests with the compensator. A claimant need not obtain the certificate, and damages should not be reduced for the compensator’s liability. A prior CICA award could be recouped under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 if, and to the extent that, it overlapped with damages actually received.

The claimants, a mother and her son, sought damages for personal injuries arising from domestic abuse, assaults, harassment, coercive and controlling behaviour, an attempted kidnapping and related wrongdoing. Default judgment on liability had been entered in May 2024. The defendant did not attend the quantum hearing, and the court proceeded in his absence under CPR r.39.3(1).

The court assessed pain, suffering and loss of amenity, past and future earnings, medical treatment and miscellaneous losses. It also determined the effect of a £26,000 CICA award and the absence of a CRU certificate. The central issues concerned the appropriate valuation of psychiatric injury and the treatment of uncertain future losses and statutory recoveries.

1. Proceeding in the defendant’s absence. The defendant had been properly served, knew of the trial and had chosen not to attend. The court therefore ordered the trial to proceed under CPR r.39.3(1).
2. C1’s damages. The court treated the psychiatric injury as falling within the overlapping JCG categories for psychiatric damage, PTSD and physical or sexual abuse. The closest category was 4(C), physical and sexual abuse. The appropriate grade was severe, because the abuse was severe and prolonged and produced severe psychiatric consequences of prolonged duration. C1 received £125,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.
3. Past earnings were assessed on the basis that C1 would have returned to substantially full-time work after maternity leave. The court accepted that PTSD, OCD and fear caused the loss and awarded £146,592 to trial. Unproven miscellaneous expenses were rejected for lack of supporting evidence.
4. Future earnings could not sensibly be valued by a conventional multiplier and multiplicand. Although a substantial theoretical but-for loss existed, future residual earning capacity, treatment, the defendant’s continuing risk and later improvement were too uncertain. A mid-range Smith v Manchester award of £64,560 was made, together with £4,000 for future therapy.
5. CRU and CICA. Under sections 4(1), 6(1) and 7 of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, the compensator was responsible for obtaining the certificate and paying recoverable benefits. C1 had no such responsibility, and no deduction was made from damages. The £26,000 CICA award was potentially recoverable under paragraphs 85 and 110 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 only when damages were actually received and to the extent of overlap.
6. C2’s damages. The court awarded £30,000 for psychiatric injury, £15,808 for treatment and gratuitous care, and £50,000 for future earning loss. The latter was assessed by a Smith v Manchester-style award because the loss was too remote and speculative for a multiplier and multiplicand.
7. Judgment was entered for C1 in the sum of £370,280 and for C2 in the sum of £97,842.