Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

WNA v NDP

[2023] EWHC 2970 (KB)
A seriously injured woman won a settlement with annual payments for care. The question was whether leftover money from one year should be saved for future care costs or if she could use it. The judge ruled that she can keep the leftover money because it is simpler and avoids unnecessary paperwork. The key is that the annual payments are for that year only.

Key Facts

  • Claimant (WNA) was a passenger in a car driven by the Defendant (NDP) which overturned in an accident.
  • Claimant sustained catastrophic injuries, becoming tetraplegic.
  • Defendant admitted liability.
  • Quantum of damages was agreed at £6.25 million lump sum and £325,000 annual periodical payments (PPs) for care and case management.
  • The issue before the court was how to prevent double recovery (receiving both damages and state funding for the same care costs).
  • Claimant has full litigation capacity.

Legal Principles

A claimant can only be compensated once for any head of loss; double recovery from a tortfeasor and the state is not permitted.

Hodgson v Trapp [1989] 1 AC 807

The court must actively intervene to prevent double recovery.

Various cases discussed in the judgment

Care Act 2014 and NHS regulations require annual review of state funding for care and repayment if unused.

Care Act 2014, Care and Support (Direct Payment) Regulations 2014, National Health Service (Direct Payment) Regulations 2013

Damages Act 1996 and CPR Part 41 allow for periodical payments for future loss, usually paid annually.

Damages Act 1996, CPR Part 41

It is for the claimant to decide how damages are applied.

Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345 (HL)

Outcomes

The annual periodical payments are treated as payment for care and case management only for the year in which they are paid.

This prevents double recovery by allowing surplus funds in a given year to be used by the claimant as they wish; annual accounting aligns with state funding assessment periods; a running account approach is impractical.

Claimant is not obligated to accumulate unspent annual PPs for future shortfalls.

This is a simpler and more practical solution than a running account, and aligns with the intention of a PPO.

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.