General damages

General damages

General damages are those damages which cannot be precisely calculated and an assessment of an appropriate sum is made. They include:

•
non-pecuniary loss (past and future) for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, handicap in the labour market, loss of congenial employment, loss of convenience etc
•
future pecuniary loss, eg future loss of earnings, future care etc

In practice, the term general damages is often used to refer only to pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA). Although this is the most common head of general damages in personal injury claims, it is not the only one. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that both parties are aware of exactly what is being referred to, particularly during the course of settlement negotiations.

This overview deals with non-pecuniary general damages only. For an overview of future loss, which includes pecuniary loss, see: Future losses—overview.

Pain, suffering and loss of amenity

A claimant is entitled to recover damages for any PSLA caused by an accident. The pain and suffering element of the award compensates the claimant for all past, present and future physical and psychiatric

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

Claim for credit hire not defeated by lack of MOT (Ali v HSF Logistics Polska Sp ZOO)

Personal injury and clinical negligence analysis: This is the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the situation where credit hire charges are claimed following a road traffic collision damaging the claimant’s vehicle, yet the claimant’s damaged vehicle did not hold a valid MOT certificate at the time of the collision. Previous County Court decisions, and one Irish High Court decision, have held that such credit hire claims are unrecoverable based on illegality and/or causation arguments. In a rare second appeal, the Court of Appeal took a different view to the lower courts and allowed the credit hire charges to be recovered. It considered that the fact that the car did not have a valid MOT certificate did not prevent damages being recovered for loss of use. Further, it would be disproportionate to bar the claim on the grounds of illegality. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister, at Gatehouse Chambers.

ACSO criticises government's response to medical reporting process consultation

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has expressed concern over the government's protracted response to the 2023 consultation on revisions to the medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims. The government plans to implement inflationary increases to fixed costs medical reports in 2025, marking an 11-year gap since fees were last set in 2014. ACSO highlights the detrimental impact on the medico-legal sector, noting a significant decrease in medical reporting organisations due to commercial challenges. The organisation criticises the inconsistency in reviewing fixed fees across civil justice, emphasising the resulting difficulties for firms in planning and investment. ACSO calls for the ongoing motor insurance taskforce to address these issues and consider the imbalance between defendant insurers and consumer representatives created by fixed costs.

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 November 2024

The minutes of the CPR Committee (CPRC) meeting of 1 November 2024 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including the Law Commission consultation on the law of contempt, Closed Material Procedure, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the outcome of the Workplace Claims consultation and costs budgeting light.

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes confirmation from the Court Funds Office on a further reduction in interest rates for basic and special accounts, and details of the MOJ’s response to a consultation on revisions to the medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims. We consider a decision that found the Court of Protection did have jurisdiction to determine a dispute over the claimant’s deputy’s release from reverse indemnity undertakings and a clinical negligence case where anonymity was refused as materials already in the public domain about the claimant’s health rendered any attempt at anonymisation futile and unjustified. We also bring you our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News