Wheatley and Another v Drillsafe Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 2000 |
| Date | 29 June 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice May and Lady Justice Hale
Damages - personal injury - general damages - no reason to depart from guideline rate of interest
There was no reason to depart from and increase the existing guideline rate of interest of 2 per cent on general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases and certainly no intrinsic reason why the guideline rate of return used for calculations of future loss should be the same as the guideline rate of interest on general damages.
The Court of Appeal so stated in a reserved judgment when dismissing the appeal of Ms Felmai Lawrence, a patient suing by her father and litigation friend Arthur Lawrence, against the decision of Mr Assistant Recorder Tucker, sitting at Stoke on Trent County Court, on 6 August 1999 awarding her Pounds 16,000 as general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for injuries suffered in a road accident involving the Staffordshire police.
The judge awarded interest on that sum at 2 per cent from the date of summons to the date of judgment. Ms Lawrence sought interest at a higher rate.
Mr Christopher Limb and Mr Boyd Morwood for Ms Lawrence; Mr Mark Anderson and Mr Jonathan Jones for the chief constable.
LORD JUSTICE MAY said that the issue was whether the guideline rate of interest to be awarded in personal injury cases on the amount of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity should be increased from 2 per cent to 3 per cent.
The existing guideline rate of 2 per cent derived from Birkett v HayesWLR ((1982) 1 WLR 816) and the House of Lords was not persuaded to vary the rate in Wright v British Railways BoardELR ((1983) 2 AC 773).
The essential submission was that the guideline rate should now be increased to 3 per cent in line with the guideline set in Wells v WellsELR ((1999) 1 AC 345) as the appropriate discount rate to be used in calculating damages for anticipated future loss and expenses.
Mr Limb submitted that the guideline rate of 2 per cent interest on general damages was derived in Birkett v Hayes in part by reference to the rate of return on index-linked government securities and similar investments.
The guideline rate of interest was maintained in Wright again by reference to the rate of return on 15-year and 25-year index-linked treasury stock issued in 1981.
In Wells v Wells the House...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Clorox Australia Pty Ltd v International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd
- Spind Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Justrade Marketing Sdn Bhd and Others
- Kavanagh Balloons Pty Ltd v Cameron Balloons Ltd
-
Arrow Generics Ltd v Akzo NV
...Chefaro Proprietaries LtdUNK [1994] RPC 567 Valensi v British Radio CorpUNKUNK [1972] FSR 273; [1973] RPC 337 Wheatley v Drillsafe LtdUNK [2001] RPC 7 Windsurfing International v Tabur Marine (GB) LtdUNK [1985] RPC 59 Textbooks etc. referred to: Declercq, J-P, Van Meerssche, M and Zeelen, F......
-
Actavis v. Eli Lilly*: Back to the FutureThe UK Supreme Court Changes the Test for Patent Infringement
...instance in Improver Corpn v. Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] FSR 181, approved by the Court of Appeal in Wheatley v. Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 7. 2 Ibid., para. 66. 3 Ibid., Para. 88 4 Ibid., Para. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matt......
-
Actavis v. Eli Lilly1: Back to the future - The UK Supreme Court changes the test for patent infringement
...instance in Improver Corpn v. Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] FSR 181, approved by the Court of Appeal in Wheatley v. Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 7. 3 Ibid., para. 66. 4 Ibid., Para. 88 5 Ibid., Para. Anthony TrentonTrevor Cook...
-
SEB v De'Longhi Appeal
...[2] British Westinghouse [1910] 27 RPC 230, Technograph [1972] RPC 346 [3] Sabaf [2002] EWCA Civ 976, Panduit [2003] FSR 8, Wheatley [2001]RPC 7 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific c......
-
INTERPRETING PATENT CLAIMS: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE UK KIRIN-AMGEN DECISION
...Reasons Why Catnic is Wrong”[1999] EIPR 531. 39 Ibid, at 532. 40 Jonathan D C Turner, “Purposive Construction”[2001] EIPR 118 at 118. 41 [2001] RPC 7 at [23]. 42 Supra n 35, at para 6.21. 43 Nobel’s Explosives Company Limited v Anderson (1894) 11 RPC 519 at 523. 44 David Bainbridge, Intelle......