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

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll