header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 October 2007
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Personal Injury Update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

CLAIM FOR DEPENDENCY >>
INTERPRETATION OF FAA 1976 >>
HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE >>

FATAL ACCIDENTS: SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO DEATH A BAR TO RECOVERY

In Thompson v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875, [2007] All ER (D) 38 (Aug) Mr Justice Langstaff, sitting in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, re-emphasised an important potential pitfall for those advising claimants whose injuries are such that they might lead to death in the near future.
It has been well established, since the case of Read v The Great Eastern Railway Company (1868) LR 3 QB 555, that a dependant will be precluded from pursuing a claim for dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976) in circumstances where the deceased has settled his or her outstanding claim for damages against the defendant tortfeasor during his or her lifetime. This follows from the wording of the FAA 1976 which, by virtue of s 1(1), permits a dependant to maintain an action for damages under that act only if the deceased would (if death had not ensued) have been entitled

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll