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: 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
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
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll