Charlotte Victoria Hassam v Yoann Samuel Rabot
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] UKSC 11 |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
2024 Feb 20; March 26
Damages - Assessment - Mixed injury - Claimant suffering whiplash and non-whiplash injuries in road traffic accident - Proper approach to assessment of damages - Civil Liability Act 2018 (c 29), s 3 -
In each of two cases the claimant claimed damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (“PSLA”) caused by injuries suffered as a result of a road traffic accident. Each claimant suffered a whiplash injury which came within the scope of section 3 of the Civil Liability Act 2018F1 as well as non-whiplash injuries which fell outside the scope of the 2018 Act. By section 3(2) of the Act the amount of damages for PSLA payable in respect of a whiplash injury was the amount stipulated by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021F2 (“the tariff amount”). In assessing damages payable for PSLA the judge (a) determined the nature of each injury, (b) valued the whiplash injury in accordance with the tariff laid down by the 2021 Regulations and the non-whiplash injuries in accordance with the common law, (c) added the two figures together and (d) took a step back before reaching a final figure by making a deduction to reflect the degree of overlap between the two types of injury. The defendants appealed, contending that the damages should have consisted of the tariff amount (to compensate for the PSLA concurrently caused by both the whiplash injury and the non-whiplash injuries) plus a further small amount (to compensate for any additional PSLA caused solely by the non-whiplash injuries). The claimants cross-appealed, contending that the judge had erred in making a deduction from the aggregate of the tariff amount and the common law damages. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) dismissed the appeals and the cross-appeal in the first case but allowed the cross-appeal in the second case to the extent of reducing the deduction made by the judge.
On the defendants’ appeals and the claimants’ cross-appeals—
Held, dismissing the appeals and cross-appeals, that section 3(8) of the Civil Liability Act 2018 indicated that the 2018 Act was, in general, not departing from the standard common law approach to assessing damages for multiple injuries, but that the common law approach should not be applied in such a way as to be inconsistent with imposing the tariff amount laid down in the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021; that, further, the purpose of the 2018 Act was, inter alia, to discourage false or exaggerated whiplash claims, to reduce the costs associated with whiplash claims and hence to help reduce motor accident insurance premiums; that, accordingly, where a claimant was seeking damages for PSLA in respect of whiplash injuries covered by the 2018 Act and non-whiplash injuries the court should (i) assess the tariff amount by applying the table in regulation 2 of the 2021 Regulations, (ii) assess the common law damages for PSLA for the non-whiplash injuries, (iii) add those two amounts together and (iv) “step back” and consider whether an adjustment should be made to reflect, albeit in a rough and ready way, the need to avoid double recovery for the same PSLA; that in making the adjustment the court had to respect the fact that the legislation had laid down a tariff amount for the whiplash injuries that was not aiming at full compensation, with the consequence that the adjustment was a slightly different exercise than if the court were dealing entirely with the common law assessment of damages for multiple injuries; that, further, if the court decided that the adjustment needed was a deduction rather than an addition (which would almost always be the case), the deduction had to be made from the common law damages because the tariff amount was a statutory fixed sum; that, however, the final award could not be lower than would have been awarded as common law damages for PSLA for the non-whiplash injuries had the claim been only for those injuries; and that, accordingly, the approach applied by the majority of the Court of Appeal was correct (post, paras 39–42, 51–52, 54).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Lord Burrows JSC:
Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [
Heil v Rankin [
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (
News Corp UK & Ireland Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs
Noble v Owens
Sadler v Filipiak
Santos v Eaton Square Garage Ltd
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Dureau v Evans [
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd
Lagden v O’Connor
Lexlaw Ltd v Zuberi
Longden v British Coal Corpn [
Mark McLaren Class Representative Ltd v Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [
R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Comr of Income Tax
Vernon v Bosley (No 1) [
APPEALS and CROSS-APPEALS from the Court of Appeal
On 22 July 2021 the claimant in the first case, Yoann Samuel Rabot, entered a small claim notification form on the Official Injury Claim Portal against the defendant, Charlotte Victoria Hassam, in respect of a road traffic accident on 16 July 2021 as a result of which the claimant had suffered injury. In the compensator’s response form dated 2 September 2021 liability was admitted in full. On 10 March 2022 a Form RTASC Q was issued. The court valuation form set out that the claimant claimed £1,390 in respect of a tariff injury and £2,500 in respect of a non-tariff injury. The compensator offers were £1,390 and £465 respectively. On 28 April 2022 the claim was transferred to the County Court at Birkenhead. By an order dated 22 June 2022 District Judge Hennessy sitting in the County Court at Birkenhead gave judgment for the claimant in the sum of £3,100 plus any interest thereon.
On 22 September 2021 the claimant in the second case, Matthew David Briggs, entered a small claim notification form on the Official Injury Claim Portal against the defendant, Boluwatife Laditan, in respect of a road traffic accident on 8 June 2021 as a result of which the claimant had suffered injury. In the compensator’s response form dated 1 November 2021 liability was admitted in full. On 10 March 2022 a Form RTASC Q was issued. The court valuation form set out that the claimant claimed £840 in respect of a tariff injury, £3,000 in respect of a non-tariff injury and £400 in respect of physiotherapy charges. The compensator offers were £840, £700 and £280 respectively. By an order dated 13 July 2022 District Judge Hennessy sitting in the County Court at Birkenhead gave judgment for the claimant in the sum of £3,200 plus any interest thereon.
In both cases the defendants appealed and the claimants cross-appealed. By orders dated 6 September 2022 Judge Wood QC sitting in the County Court at Liverpool ordered that both cases be transferred to the Court of Appeal for further determination pursuant to CPR r 52.23(1) to be considered in conjunction. By an order dated 17 October 2022 the Court of Appeal (Nicola Davies LJ) accepted the transfer up of the cases pursuant to CPR r 52.23(1) and ordered that they be linked and heard together. By a further order of 10 November 2022 the Court of Appeal (Nicola Davies LJ) gave permission to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Motor Accident Solicitors Society to intervene jointly in the conjoined appeals. On 20 January 2023 the Court of Appeal (Nicola Davies and Stuart-Smith LJJ; Sir Geoffrey Vos MR dissenting) [2023] EWCA Civ 19; [2023] KB 171 dismissed the appeals and the cross-appeal in the first case but allowed the cross-appeal in the second case to the extent of recalculating the damages to be awarded.
With permission granted by the Supreme Court (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Burrows and Lord Richards JJSC) on 23 May 2023 the defendants appealed. With permission granted by the Supreme Court (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Burrows and Lord Richards JJSC) on 10 October 2023 the defendants cross-appealed. With permission granted by the Supreme Court (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Burrows and Lord Richards JJSC) on 14 December 2023 the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Motor Accident Solicitors Society intervened on the appeals and the cross-appeals. The issue was agreed to be: Where a claimant suffered a whiplash injury which came within the scope of section 3 of the Civil Liability Act 2018 and attracted a tariff award stipulated by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, but also suffered additional injury which fell outside the scope of the Act and did not attract a tariff award, were the damages allowed for pain and suffering and loss of amenity (“PSLA”) concurrently caused by both whiplash and other injuries to be (i) only that part of the tariff amount allowed for PSLA, or (ii) the part of the tariff amount allowed for PSLA and the amount allowed for PSLA by the normal common law compensation for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maher v Dublin City Council
...insofar as a statute is departing from common law, that departure should be as limited as possible (see most recently Hassam v Rabot [2024] UKSC 11 at para. 40). In the case of s. 24 of the DSA it is impossible not to be struck not merely by the fact that the draftsman did not expressly ou......
-
(1) Dr Marcus Bicknell (2) The British Medical Association v NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Commissioning Board
...which called for consideration of the “context and purpose” of the legislative provision in question, referring to Hassam v Rabot [2024] UKSC 11 at Judgment approved by the court for handing down Dr Bicknell & BMA v NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB © EAT 2024 Page 14 [2024] EAT 103 In......