Thomas v Brighton Health Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1995 |
| Date | 07 November 1995 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Collins
Damages - quantum - investment test
In determining the quantum of damages in a personal injuries action, the test was not whether it would be prudent to invest in equities but whether to invest in index linked gilts instead would achieve the necessary object with greater precision.
Mr Justice Collins so held in the Queen's Bench Division when determining the quantum of damages in a personal injury action brought by the plaintiff, who was born on June 30, 1989, in the Royal Sussex County Hospital, under the management of the defendant authority.
The plaintiff suffered from marked athetoid cerebral palsy as a result of the defendant's negligence and/or breach of statutory duty. The defendant admitted liability. The matter came before the court to determine quantum only.
Mr Robert Owen, QC and Mr Philip Havers, QC, for the plaintiff; Mr Kieran Coonan, QC, and Miss Christina Lambert for the defendant.
MR JUSTICE COLLINS said that practitioners were in a state of uncertainty as to which direction the courts would take in the light of the greater prominence given to investment in index linked gilts by the Law Commission's report No 224 of September 1994 Structured Settlements and Interim and Provisional Damages (Cm 2646) and the unreported decision of Judge Wilcox in Wells v Wells (June 13, 1995).
The issue to decide was whether, having regard to the availability of indexed linked gilts, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells v Wells
...INTRODUCTION Pages 2–5 PART I The General Point of Principle Pages 6–48 PART II The Individual Cases: WELLS v WELLS Pages 49–78 THOMAS v BRIGHTON HEALTH AUTH Pages 78–100 PAGE v SHEERNESS STEEL Pages 100–112 APPENDIX Pages 113–125 Lord Justice Hirst 1INTRODUCTION 2These three appeals raise ......
-
Russell (A Minor) v Health Service Executive
...damage, was unable to work and would require care for the rest of her life. The second was that of Thomas v. Brighton Health Authority [1996] P.I.Q.R. Q44 which concerned a six-year-old boy damaged before birth by the maladministration of a drug intended to induce labour. He suffered from c......
-
Li Ka Wai And Another v Hospital Authority
...invested are inflation protected in that they are adjusted in accordance with the UK General Index of Retail Prices (RPI). [12] [1996] PIQR Q44 [13] [1996] PIQR Q26 [14] [1996] PIQR Q62 [15] [1999]1AC 345 [16]...
-
Chan Pak Ting v Chan Chi Kuen And Another
...invested are inflation protected in that they are adjusted in accordance with the UK General Index of Retail Prices (RPI). [12] [1996] PIQR Q44 [13] [1996] PIQR Q26 [14] [1996] PIQR Q62 [15] [1999]1AC 345 [16]...