header-logo header-logo

03 March 2016
Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Knauer changes PI law

The date of trial is the relevant date when assessing damages for fatal accidents, the Supreme Court has held.

The landmark case of Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9 concerned the appropriate date for the assessment of multipliers in claims brought under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976—whether it is the date of death or the date of trial.

Sally Knauer was an administrator at Guy’s Marsh Prison in Dorset, where she was exposed to asbestos. She subsequently contracted mesothelioma and died at the age of 46. Her husband brought a claim for future loss of dependency under the 1976 Act. The respondent admitted liability and legal argument centred on the relevant date for assessing damages.

In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court allowed Knauer’s appeal, holding that the relevant date was the date of trial. This is in line with a recommendation by the Law Commission in their 1999 report, Claims for Wrongful Death. The Justices overturned Cookson v Knowles [1976] AC 556 and Graham v Dodds [1983] 1 WLR 808, which they said were decided at a time when calculation of damages was less sophisticated and did not use actuarial evidence or tables.

Tom Poole, of 3 Hare Court, says: “This is an extremely important development in the law and will be of particular importance to a large number of families who are wrongfully deprived of income and services of a family member. The difference in approach meant an increase in Mr Knauer’s damages of over £50,000 and will likely see larger dependency awards in all fatal accident cases.”

In their judgment, the Justices said that calculating damages for loss of dependency from the date of death, rather than the date of trial, means that the claimant suffers a discount for early receipt of the money when in fact that money will not be received until after trial, a discount that results in under-compensation in most cases.

Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll