Hunter v Butler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1995 |
| Date | 19 December 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Hirst, Lord Justice Waite and Lord Justice Hobhouse
Damages - quantum - loss of moonlighting cannot be claimed
Where the widow of a deceased claimed for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for the death of her husband, there was no liability for loss of dependency in respect of undeclared earnings, commonly called "moonlighting", or for housing benefit and supplementary benefit on the ground that she was dependent on him for those sums and had lost them as a result of his death.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment allowing in part an appeal by Mrs Maria Hunter, administratrix of the estate of Kenneth Hunter, deceased, from a judgment of District Judge Moon, Torquay District Registry, awarding damages of £6,575, but refusing to include in the sum awarded any amount for the loss of dependency.
Mr Michael de Navarro, QC and Mr James Hayward for Mrs Hunter; Mr William Stevenson for the defendant.
LORD JUSTICE WAITE said that the appeal arose from the death of Mr Kenneth Hunter in a motor accident on December 9, 1983. Liability was admitted by the driver of the vehicle concerned. The deceased left a widow and six children.
From July 1983 until his death the deceased worked part-time, earning some £90 a week. He did not disclose those earnings to the social security authorities from whom he continued to draw benefit at the full rate.
His Lordship said that he would allow the appeal in respect of the first two issues, namely the district judge's finding (a) that the deceased had a nil prospect of employment, and (b) the calculation of the lost chance of full-time earnings, which was not an issue considered by the district judge but arose from his finding on the first issue, and would award a total of £12,480 under those heads.
On the third issue, namely whether the loss of eligibility (a) for supplementary benefit and/or (b) the proceeds of moonlighting should be included as a further head of damage for loss of dependency, he found the argument in respect of (a) to be wholly untenable.
In respect of supplementary benefit, the widow was in no sense dependent on the deceased. She, no less than he, was dependent in that regard on the state. The argument was not assisted by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hassall v Secretary of State for Social SecurityWLR ((1995) 1 WLR 813).
With regard to (b) Mr de Navarro contended that in the event of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v Hockenhull
...was no dependency upon the deceased, but only upon the state; and there is no financial loss. He relies on the decision of this court in Hunter v Butler [1996] RTR 396. Alternatively: (b) That the Invalid Care Allowance was paid to Mr Cox in connection with his work of caring and should not......
-
Gagen Sharma (as former Liquidator of Mama Milla Ltd) v Top Brands Ltd and Others (First and Second Respondents)
...burglary but for the defendant's negligence: see also the statement of principle to the same effect by Hobhouse LJ in Hunter v Butler [1996] RTR 396 at405B. Nor is this a case like Stone & Rolls where the complaint is that the defendant ought to have prevented the illegal business from cont......
-
Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd
...of relief, rather than the whole of his or her claim. An example from a different area is provided by ( Hunter v. Butler CA, 19 December 1995, ref. C0003516, unreported). See also Meah v. McCreamer [1985] 1 AER 367; and [1986] 1 AER 943 ( No.2), 951, the relevant passages from which were c......
-
Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc.
...[1994] AC 340, Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341, Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] QB 978, and Hunter v Butler [1996] RTR 396, seeking to distinguish some and to draw a comparison with others. He submitted that the Judge was wrong to rely on a different test, namely o......