header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 July 2009 / Andrew Ritchie KC
Issue: 7379 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Damaged

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Who should pay for additional educational needs, asks Andrew Ritchie QC

Children and adolescents who have suffered brain injury as a result of a tort will have additional needs for educational assistance. The state provides schools and (questionably) adequate education for the general population. It also provides additional help for those with special needs, but often does not cater adequately for them. So can the claimant recover damages for his additional educational needs?

The main principle 

Damages are recoverable in full for the additional cost and expense involved in providing for an injured child’s special needs where those needs were caused by the defendant’s tort. Other examples of heads of loss where the defendant is required to fund the costs of the injured child’s special needs include: speech therapy; occupational therapy; physiotherapy; specially adapted household aids and equipment; adapted IT aids and equipment; specially adapted transport; nursing care; and housing.

This statement of the full compensation principle springs from a long established tort rule summarised 129 years ago by Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v

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
Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll