- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Heil v Rankin (2000)
Key Issue: The appropriate level of general damages (specifically for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity) in personal injury and clinical negligence claims.
Background:
Key Issue: The appropriate level of general damages (specifically for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity) in personal injury and clinical negligence claims.
Background:
- This case involved a joint hearing of several appeals.
- The Court of Appeal considered the Law Commission's Report No. 257 (1999) which addressed the issue of damage quantum.
- Defendants argued that adjusting damage levels was a legislative function, not a judicial one.
- The Court of Appeal asserted its responsibility to review damage levels and deemed it unnecessary to wait for Parliamentary intervention.
- However, the court disagreed with the Law Commission's recommendation for significant increases in damage amounts.
- Key Outcome: The Court of Appeal established guidelines for general damages (pain, suffering, and loss of amenity) in personal injury and clinical negligence claims exceeding £10,000.
- Awards were to be graduated, meaning the increase was proportionate to the initial award size.
- The maximum increase was capped at one-third (33%) for the highest-level awards.
- Examples of Graduated Increases:
- Damages of £150,000: +33%
- Damages of £110,000: +25%
- Damages of £80,000: +20%
- Damages of £40,000: +10%
- This case provides judicial guidance on the quantification of general damages.
- It confirms the judiciary's role in setting damage levels, even in the face of arguments that this is a legislative prerogative.
- Introduced a graduated scale to ensure proportionality in increasing general damage awards.
0 Comments