Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Charlotte Victoria Hassam & Anor. v Yoann Samuel Rabot & Anor.

[2023] EWCA Civ 19
If you're hurt in a car accident and have both whiplash (covered by a new law) and other injuries, the court will figure out how much you get for each separately. Then, they make sure you're not overpaid by removing any overlap in your injuries. You'll always get at least what you deserve for injuries not related to whiplash.

Key Facts

  • Two appeals (Rabot and Briggs) concerning road traffic accident claims involving whiplash and other injuries.
  • Claims processed through the Official Injury Claim (OIC) portal.
  • Whiplash injuries fell under the Civil Liability Act 2018 (2018 Act) and Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 (Regulations), attracting tariff awards.
  • Other injuries were non-tariff injuries, assessed under common law.
  • The key question: How to assess damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity (PSLA) in mixed injury cases (tariff and non-tariff)?

Legal Principles

Full compensation for injuries.

Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25; Attorney General of St Helena v AB [2020] UKPC 1; Heil v Rankin [2001] QB 272

In mixed injury cases, assess damages for each injury separately, then 'step back' to avoid double-counting (Sadler v Filipiak [2011] EWCA Civ 1728).

Sadler v Filipiak [2011] EWCA Civ 1728

Statutory interpretation: Presumption that Parliament does not alter common law unless expressly stated or necessarily implied (Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612).

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612

Civil Liability Act 2018, section 3: governs PSLA damages for whiplash injuries, setting tariff amounts.

Civil Liability Act 2018, section 3

Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021: specify tariff amounts for whiplash injuries based on duration.

Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021

Outcomes

Appeals in Rabot and Briggs dismissed.

The 2018 Act and Regulations only address whiplash injuries; they don't alter the common law assessment of non-whiplash injuries. The court should assess tariff injuries under the Regulations and non-tariff injuries under common law, then adjust to avoid double-counting, ensuring the final award isn't less than the value of non-tariff injuries alone.

Cross-appeal in Rabot dismissed; cross-appeal in Briggs allowed in part.

The deduction in Rabot was reasonable; the deduction in Briggs was excessive. In Briggs, a reduction of £340 to the non-tariff award was deemed appropriate, resulting in a total award of £3,500.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.