Damages

Damages

NOTE: On 2 December 2024, the Lord Chancellor announced that the discount rate would change to positive 0.5%. The positive 0.5% discount rate is effective from 11 January 2025. Schedule A1 to the Damages Act 1996 provides that subsequent reviews are to take place within five years of the conclusion of the previous review which means that the next review must commence on or before 2 December 2029.

When assessing damages, it will not always be as straightforward as attributing all of the claimant’s ongoing medical problems to the alleged negligence. You must ascertain the actual damage caused by the defendant’s negligence. Assessment will be simpler if the claimant suffered no relevant pre-existing problems and the treatment should have fixed the injury, eg timely treatment of a wrist fracture in a young healthy patient. However, assessment can be significantly more complex if there were pre-existing problems that were likely to impact on the claimant in any event eg osteoarthritis or mental health issues, or if the incident exacerbated or expedited the onset of other conditions.

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Damages in clinical negligence claims.

Loss of a chance

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—30 January 2025

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes a news analysis of how advances in neurotechnology may impact the personal injury and clinical negligence industry, a case in which QOCS protection was reinstated by the Court of Appeal in a ‘mixed’ claim and a case analysis where the Court of Appeal again considered whether the police held a duty of care to protect the public from third party harm, following on from the Supreme Court decision in Tindall. We also bring you details of the updated guidance published by HMCTS for the Damages Claims pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZB. In addition, we have our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

No police duty to protect from third party harm—applying the Tindall principles (Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock, HD and others v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In this conjoined appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether the police held a duty of care to protect Ms Woodcock and CJ from harm caused by a third party; and whether the police’s investigative duty, pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, can arise before the claimant has suffered ill treatment at the hands of a third party. This decision represents the first occasion upon which the Court of Appeal has been asked to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and has provided some important points of practical application to practitioners in this area. Written by Jennie Oborne, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Neurotechnology and the law—Personal injury and clinical negligence

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Harry Lambert, a barrister at Crown Office Chambers and founder and head of the Centre for Neurotechnology and Law, considers the coming advances in neurotechnology and their potential impact upon rehabilitation and game-changing implications for personal injury and clinical negligence.

Secondary Victim Claims and Medical Negligence—what is the future after Paul? (Part 2)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Alex Stutt of Anthony Gold discusses the landmark Supreme Court case of Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent) [2024] UKSC 1 and considers the impact of the court’s comments on duty of care.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News