Hassam and another (Appellants) v Rabot and another (Respondents) (2024)
Hassam and another (Appellants) v Rabot and another (Respondents) (2024)
Background
This appeal arises from two claims in the County Court in Birkenhead. Both claimants were involved in road traffic accidents caused by negligent defendant drivers. Both claimants experienced Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity (“PSLA”) caused concurrently by both whiplash injuries and non-whiplash injuries. The dispute centred on the approach a court should take to compensation for PSLA caused by both whiplash injuries and non-whiplash injuries.
The Issues
How should a court assess damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity ("PSLA") in the tort of negligence, where the claimant suffered PSLA caused by both: (a) a whiplash injury which comes within the scope of the Civil Liability Act 2018 (the "2018 Act") and therefore attracts a fixed "tariff award"; and (b) a non-whiplash injury which does not attract a tariff award?
Held
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal in finding that the pain, suffering and loss of amenity aspect of compensation in non-tariff disputes must be assessed on common law principles.The correct approach was that the court should: (a) assess the (fixed) tariff amount for the whiplash injury; (b) assess the common law damages for the other (non-whiplash) injuries; (c) add these amounts together; (d) consider whether an adjustment to the total was needed in order to avoid over- or under-compensation for the PSLA which was concurrent in both injuries; (e) make any such adjustment to the common law damages (not the tariff amount, which is fixed); but (f) ensure that the total damages award is not lower than would have been awarded as common law damages for the non-whiplash injury if the claimant had made no whiplash injury claim.
Comment
This approach results in a higher overall award compensation than the approach suggested by the defendants’ insurers. Mixed injury claims for whiplash and non-whiplash account for around two-thirds of all motor claims, so this is a very significant result for claimants and their solicitors.
See copy of the Judgment here:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2023-0025-judgment.pdf
