Key Facts
- •FXS, a 9-year-old, was a student at the Mulberry Bush School from June 2008 to September 2009.
- •FXS alleged negligence, assault, battery, trespass to the person, and false imprisonment against the School.
- •A previous judgment ([2024] EWHC 1406 (KB)) found the School liable for three instances of battery (face-down restraints) and 14 instances of false imprisonment (using a towel to block the doorway).
- •The current judgment addresses damages and costs.
- •The School's defense argued that the restraints were justified given FXS's behavior and that any distress was minimal.
- •The claimant sought basic and aggravated damages for assault and battery, and false imprisonment, as well as indemnity costs.
Legal Principles
Damages for assault and battery can be awarded even without physical injury, compensating for injury to feelings.
McGregor on Damages, 22nd edition (§43-001)
Aggravated damages can be awarded in addition to basic damages for insulting, malicious, oppressive, or high-handed behavior.
Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Hsu v the same [1998] Q.B. 498 CA
Comparable cases are illustrative but not rigid benchmarks for damages awards; each case is fact-sensitive.
Various case law cited throughout the judgment
In costs assessment, success is determined by a common-sense evaluation of the real-life result.
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali (no 3) [1999], NLJ 1734
Indemnity costs are awarded for conduct outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of proceedings.
Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 87t and Esure Services Ltd v Quarcoo [2009] EWCA Civ 595
Outcomes
Basic damages of £6,000 awarded for three instances of battery.
The face-down restraints were inherently humiliating and degrading, breaching the School's policy and showing a disregard for FXS's safety.
Aggravated damages of £4,000 awarded for the batteries.
The School failed to appreciate the seriousness of the face-down restraints, showed reluctance to acknowledge wrongdoing, and attempted to minimize the impact on FXS.
Basic damages of £2,000 awarded for the longest false imprisonment incident (nearly 5 hours), and £300 for each of the other 13 incidents.
The false imprisonment, though sometimes brief, was distressing and unlawful. The School's use of the towel method persisted despite objections and lacked proper justification.
Aggravated damages of £3,000 awarded for the false imprisonment.
The School persisted in using the towel method despite objections from FXS's father and social services, and showed reluctance to acknowledge wrongdoing.
The School ordered to pay FXS's costs on the standard basis.
FXS was the successful party, and while the School successfully defended some aspects of the claim, the central issues were those on which FXS succeeded.