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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll