header-logo header-logo

Competing principles

27 November 2008 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7347 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Richard Scorer says a fine balanceis required for awarding damages to victims of serious injury

A recurring issue in personal injury litigation in recent years is the question of whether awards of damages to victims of serious injury should be reduced to reflect the victim’s entitlement to statutory services, whether care, accommodation or cash payments, from his or her local authority. The principle underlying personal injury compensation is that the damages awarded should put the injured party back in same financial position as if he had not been injured. However, under the National Assistance Act 1948, local authorities have a duty to assess a disabled person’s needs and where that person is eligible, to offer care and/or accommodation, and more recent legislation has given rise to entitlements to money payments to meet the costs of care (direct payments).

Defendants have argued that where the claimant’s needs will be met in whole or in part by the local authority, the claimant should give credit for that entitlement. Underlying this dispute is a clash of competing principles.

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

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll