Compensation for Loss of Mother's Services
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300503 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Compensation for Loss of Mother's Services
RvCICB, exp K (Minors) [1999] 2 WLR
948
The father having murdered the
mother
of their three children, they
were taken into
the
care of their paternal uncle
and
his wife. The chil-
dren
applied to
the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) for
compensation in respect of thelost services of their mother. On
the
basis
of the criteria applicable in the making of
an
award in a civil action, a
single
member
of the Board awarded
them
£35,000; The children were
represented by
the
Official Solicitor who, being of the opinion
that
the
award was too low, sought an oral hearing. At that hearing, the Board
reduced
the
award to
£3,000
for each of
the
three children. The children
applied for judicial review of that decision.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation (CIC) Scheme (as revised in
1990) required that
any
award
under
the
Scheme should be assessed
in accordance with
the
criteria used in the courts in making civil awards
of damages. Section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act
1976
(as substituted by
s3(1) of
the
Administration of Justice Act 1982) enacted
that
in assess-
ing damages
under
the Act in respect of a person's death, benefits which
have accrued or which will or may accrue to a person from the death
shall be ignored.
On the second occasion, the Board had decided that
the
replacement
services provided by the
aunt
and
uncle were at least as good as the
parental services provided by the mother. The issue in
the
Divisional
Court was
whether
the benefit accruing to
the
children on their being
absorbed into a
new
family was a benefit which
had
to be ignored by
virtue of the Fatal Accidents Act 1982 (as substituted). The grounds on
which the Official Solicitor appealed from the second decision of the
Board were: (1) the Board's error in holding that, as the children
received replacement care, they had suffered no loss of general parental
care; for the Board should
not
have taken
the
value of the parental
replacement care into account
when
assessing
the
measure of
the
child-
ren's loss;
and
(2) the Board was further in error in deciding
that
the
new
services to the children were
not
abenefit which arose from the
death
and
accordingly did
not
have to be disregarded in assessing
the
children's loss.
HELD,
GRANTING
THE
APPUCATlON,
in assessing damages for loss of
dependency
on
the services of the mother, the accrual of
the
benefit of
having been received into the family of the uncle
and
aunt
had to be
ignored, by virtue of s 4of the 1982 Act. The Board was in error on the
second occasion in taking account of that benefit, and, for that reason,
the second decision of the board was quashed. The court remitted the
case for reconsideration by a different panel of the Board.
394
To continue reading
Request your trial