Reincke v Gray
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SELLERS,LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1964 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1964] EWCA Civ J0511-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 11 May 1964 |
[1964] EWCA Civ J0511-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(From: Master Lawrence - Middlesex)
Lord Justice Sellers
Lord Davids and
Lord Justice Salmon
Mr. MICHAEL TURNER (instructed by Messrs. William Easton & Sons) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).
Mr. W. A. MacPHRRSON (instructed by Messrs. Waterhouse & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
On the 28th August, 1962, the husband of the plaintiff in this action, Mrs. Zoe Ashworth Reincke, was killed in a motor accident for which the defendant has admitted liability. She re-married in May, 1963, and the question of the amount to be recovered by her on behalf of herself and two infant children was before Master Lawrence for assessment in February of this year. The children of the marriage at the time of the matter coming before the Master were Geoffrey, 4 years 10 mouths, and Robin Anne, 2 years 11 months, There was also a claim of dependency by the deceased husband's mother, who was apparently living separately at a hotel and for whom he made an allowance of £12 a month. The deceased was in good employment earning, with various additions, £1,800 a year at least. Very little seems to have been adduced as to his future prospect but he was with a well-known company and his prospects were no doubt good. The dependency of the widow and the two children was agreed in the course of the proceedings before the Master at,£1,000 a year.
One must recall that the award under the Fatal Accidents Acts is only an award based on pecuniary loss by reason of the death, and the second marriage of course was an important factor to be taken into consideration in relation to that. The second husband did not give evidence but the widow (now Mrs. Paris) said that her husband was earning some £2,500 a year as a chartered accountant with a possibility or a probability that he might become a partner in the firm in which he is, a large firm of accountants in London, that he had accepted the two children into the family, that the son was attending a kindergarten school at 18 guineas a term and that Robin Anne was going to an infant school or would do so when she was two years old, that the husband had agreed to that, and that she hoped the boy when he was older, as his father had intended he should do, would go to King's School, Canterbury. Having discussed that last matter with her husband, Mr. Paris, he was agreeable to that course aswell. I have briefly indicated the evidence from the short note which has been made available to this court.
The learned Master awarded the deceased's mother, Mrs. Catherine Reincke, £1,000, having regard to the fact that she was getting from him £12 a month, that she was 70 years of age (she had been a widow for some time, I think), and that, although not in perfect health, she was apparently in quite good health. She had had an operation for cataract in her right eye but she said that for her age she felt all right. She gave evidence. I have come to the conclusion that that was a fair sum for the learned Master to award and that this court ought not to disturb it. This lady might live for many years and might show that sum not to have been adequate. On the other hand, there are all the contingencies of life, and all that the court can do is to assess a reasonable figure, which I think that was, at any rate one well within the discretion of the tribunal which assessed it.
With regard to the widow, she withdrew any claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts. She had in fact made a claim as one of the administrators of the estate of her deceased husband and there had been here recovered £450 damages under the Law Reform Act and some £64 odd as funeral...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzsimons v Telecom Éireann
...consideration. 40 Several of the authorities referred to in Hay .v. Hughes dealt with the effect of remarriage. See Reincke .v. Grey 1964 2 All ER 687; Goodburn .v. Thomas Cotton Limited 1968 1 All ER 518 and Buckley .v. John Allen and Ford (Oxford) Limited 1967 1 All ER 542; Meade .v. Clar......
-
Hay v Hughes
...even this does not, in my judgment, mean that if a widow with a child has prospects of remarriage or has oven actually remarried (as in Reincke -v- Gray, 1964 1 W.L.R, 832 C.A.) the dependancy of the child thereupon terminates, for it may never "be accepted as one of the family" by the now......
-
Stanley v Saddique
...the sum of £500. Mr. Worsley also submitted that it could be open to me, on the basis of Meade v. Clarke-Chapman [1956] 1 W.L.R. 76 and Reincke v. Gray [1964] 1 W.L.R. 832 to find that because Tracey was a stepmother, some allowance by way of lost services should be allowed in case in yea......
-
Jackson Koko and Elisha Koko, Infants, by Their Next Friend, Mava Koko v MVIT
...v MVIT [1979] PNGLR 251, Mehmet v Perry [1977] 2 All ER 529, Regan v Williamson [1976] 1 WLR 305; [1976] 2 All ER 241, Reincke v Gray [1964] 1 WLR 832; [1964] 2 All ER 687, Thompson v Mandla [1976] 2 NSWLR 307 referred to A wife and mother (aged 23) was killed in a motor vehicle accident ca......