AXA v Airedale NHS Foundation Trust
[2024] EWHC 2499 (KB)
CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals
12 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1770 (KB)
High Court
A little girl got very sick because of a hospital's mistake. The judge decided the hospital needs to pay a lot of money to help her get better and have a good life. This includes paying for things like her care, a special house, equipment, and therapy. The judge listened to many people and looked at lots of evidence to make sure the hospital paid a fair amount.
Key Facts
- •Claimant, an 8-year-old girl, suffered cerebral palsy (CP) due to the Defendant hospital's negligence.
- •Liability was admitted by the Defendant in 2019.
- •The case concerned the quantification of damages for various heads of loss.
- •The Claimant's mother acted as her litigation friend and had also settled her own claim for psychiatric injuries.
- •The trial lasted 9 days and involved lay and expert witness testimony.
Legal Principles
The aim of damages in personal injury cases is to provide full compensation, restoring the claimant to their pre-injury position as far as money can.
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal [1880] 5 App. Cas. 25; Pickett v British Rail [1980] A.C. 136; Heil v Rankin [2001] 2 QB 272
Special damages must be pleaded and itemized, detailing specific losses.
Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 Q.B. 524; CPR rule 16.4(e) and PD 16 para 4.2
Claimants have a duty to mitigate their losses, but the burden of proving failure to mitigate rests on the Defendant.
British Westinghouse v Underground Electric [1912] AC 673; Wilding v British Telecommunications [2002] EWCA Civ 349; London v Stone [1983] 1 WLR 1242
In assessing reasonableness of expenses, proportionality is a relevant factor, considering if less expensive alternatives achieve similar results.
Whiten v St Georges Healthcare [2011] EWHC 2066 (QB); A v Morecambe Bay [2015] EWHC 366 (QB)
Damages for gratuitous care should compensate the carer, considering lost income, market cost of care, and the nature of care provided.
Housecroft v Burnett [1986] 1 All E.R 332; Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Ltd [2002] P.I.Q.R Q5
Deduction of parents' 'but for' accommodation costs from a child claimant's damages is generally not allowed, considering the sacrifices made by parents.
Iqbal v Whipps Cross [2006] EWHC 3111; Whiten [2011] EWHC 2066; Ellison v [2015] EWHC 359
Outcomes
Awarded £390,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity.
Considered the severity of the CP, impact on senses, communication, and enjoyment of life, while acknowledging the Claimant's limited awareness.
Awarded £125,230 for past gratuitous care with no deduction.
Acknowledged the extensive and demanding care provided by the mother, exceeding typical parental care.
Awarded £1,124,871 for past commercial care, with a deduction for unreasonable expenses during the initial care regime setup.
Accepted the necessity of higher-cost care during the COVID-19 pandemic but deemed initial decisions to utilize Thornbury nurses as unreasonable.
Awarded £160,000 for past case management, with a reduction due to the use of an unqualified case manager and multiple changes in case management companies.
Acknowledged the difficulties of the COVID-19 pandemic but found some aspects of the case management to be unreasonable.
Awarded £160,407 for past accommodation rental costs.
Expenses were incurred due to the need for larger accommodations to accommodate the Claimant's needs, and the Defendant failed to provide evidence of the mother's 'but for' costs.
Awarded £643,518 for the purchase of The New House and related expenses.
The purchase was deemed reasonable given the Claimant's needs, despite some criticisms of its size.
Awarded £607,100 for the installation of a hydrotherapy pool.
Considered the past and future benefits of hydrotherapy, the lack of suitable alternative pool access, and the relative cost of alternative solutions.
Awarded a periodical payments order (PPO) of £372,080 per annum for future care, indexed for inflation.
Based on the need for two day carers and two waking night carers, rejecting the Defendant's proposal for the mother to provide gratuitous care.
Awarded a PPO of £22,860 per annum for future case management, indexed for inflation.
Based on the expert evidence of Miss Sargent, considering the complexity of the case.
Awarded £716,097 for future accommodation alterations.
Preferred the expert evidence of Mr. Docker, rejecting the Defendant's arguments about the size of the property and the need for a through-floor lift.
Awarded £842,720 for future accommodation running expenses.
Based on the evidence of Mr Docker, adjusted to account for the phased commencement of these expenses.
Awarded £68,630 for future occupational therapy.
Based on a reduced assessment of the need for ongoing OT, considering the settled care arrangements and adapted accommodation.
Awarded £323,826 for future equipment, after disallowing several items deemed unnecessary based on the evidence.
Considered the Claimant's needs and the reasonableness of the proposed equipment, rejecting some items as unnecessary.
Awarded £320,000 for future transport, including the initial purchase and future renewals.
Based on the preferred evidence regarding suitable WAVs, adjusting the renewal period based on the lack of need for frequent travel.
Awarded £238,644 for future miscellaneous expenses (laundry, hygiene, and holidays).
Considered the Claimant's needs and the evidence regarding holiday costs, rejecting the Defendant's proposed restrictions.
No award made for future education support.
The Claimant's intention to homeschool, combined with the school's insufficient staffing and the Claimant's limitations, deemed additional support at school unnecessary.
Awarded £310,000 for future Court of Protection costs (agreed by the parties).
Agreed amount.