Restitutio In Integrum: ‘What’s done cannot be undone’

Christopher Kennedy QC considers the principles behind the notion of ‘full compensation’ in cases involving serious personal injury and how they have been applied ‘What sounds perfectly straightforward in the judgment of an eminent jurist can appear more challenging when considering the messy facts of an individual case.’The phrase ‘restitutio in integrum’ means restoration to …
This post is only available to members.

Discount Rate: The longest wait

Julian Matthews reviews the current position in England in light of the decision of the Privy Council in Helmot v Simon ‘The outcome of Helmot v Simon [2012] has been recently reviewed in the Privy Council. What has happened in that case may well have some interesting pointers to the forthcoming debate to be held …
This post is only available to members.

Re JDS; Smyth v JDS [2012] COP 10334473

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2012 #118

In 2001 the patient, J, received a settlement of £2,090,000 damages in respect of cerebral palsy suffered as a result of complications at the time of his birth in 1991. Of this, £1,611,222 was attributable to his future care needs. J is an only child. His father was born in 1959 and his mother in 1962. He lives with them in a house bought in October 2000 for £349,950 from an interim payment that is held by his parents and Mr Smyth (S), his receiver (now the deputy) as his trustees. Its current value is estimated at £675,000. J’s life expectancy was originally assessed in 1998 as la...

Quantum: Drafting a schedule in a serious clinical negligence case

Stuart Mckechnie gives practical tips on how to optimise claims ‘Traditionally, the costs of commercial care have increased year-on-year at a higher rate than conventional inflation.’The schedule of loss is the most important quantum document in any serious clinical negligence case. This article provides guidance on how to construct such a schedule and maximise the …
This post is only available to members.

Life Expectancy: Calculation of multipliers

Richard Lodge reviews the court’s approach to applying Ogden Tables 1, 2 and 28 ‘Those involved in personal injury litigation will be aware that defendants routinely argue that Table 1 or 2 is the appropriate method for calculation of the life multiplier. This argument should not be assumed to be correct, however, and much depends …
This post is only available to members.