header-logo header-logo

21 February 2008 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury , Employment
printer mail-detail

Future proof? (1)

In the first of two articles, Nicholas Bevan explains why Thompstone represents a sea change for future care claims

In January 2008, the Court of Appeal released what is one of the most important rulings of the decade in tortious law, Thompstone v Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust (and three other conjoined appeals) [2008] EWCA Civ 5, [2008] All ER (D) 72 (Jan). It concerns a technical issue: whether and in what circumstances a court may depart from the Retail Prices Index (RPI), set by the Damages Act 1996 (DA 1996), s 2(8), when inflation-proofing a periodical payments order in a personal injury claim featuring future loss. This decision will propel the periodical payments regime from the backwaters into the mainstream as a means of delivering compensation for future loss in personal injury claims. The appeals involve claims by individuals who have been severely injured at birth due to negligent treatment by a local health authority or NHS trust. All four claims include substantial amounts to meet the lifelong cost of providing

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll