Supreme Court rejects ‘illogical’ precedent on death payments

Topics: Courts business,Industrial injury

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (5)
  • Save

Related images

  • Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that a mesothelioma victim’s family was under-compensated because of the date when damages were calculated.

The widower of Mrs Knauer, a former administration assistant who died at the age of 46 from the disease in 2009, appealed a ruling that the annual figure for the value of lost income and services (the multiplicand) should be calculated from the date of her death.


The appellant argued the figure should be calculated from the date of trial – making a difference of almost £53,000 in compensation payable.

In a joint judgment in Knauer v Ministry of Justice, Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale explained that calculating damages from the date of death meant the claimant suffered a discount for early receipt of the money, when in fact the money will not be received until after trial.

The effect of the discount, they said, was ‘far from negligible’ and results in under-compensation in most cases.

The defendant, Knauer’s former employer the Ministry of Justice, acknowledged the strength of the claimant’s case but urged judges to see the system as a whole, with some claimants being over-compensated.

But the judges said it would be wrong to preserve a ‘flawed practice’ affecting most claimants to counteract other legislative choices made by parliament.

To agree with the original judgment, they argued, would be to rely on two cases from the House of Lords, Cookson v Knowles and Graham v Dodds, decided in a ‘different era, when the calculation of damages for personal injury and death was nothing like as sophisticated as it is now’.

The reasoning in those cases was ‘illogical’ and their application resulted in unfair outcomes.

Instead, the Supreme Court opted to depart from precedent and side with the approach recommended by the Law Commission in its 1999 report Claims for Wrongful Death.   

The court allowed the appeal and ruled that the correct date at which to assess the multiplier for fixing damages for future loss should be the date of trial and not the date of death.

In its review of the case, defendant firm Kennedys said this should not come as a huge surprise to those dealing with personal injury claims and should not represent a significant shift in ordinary working practices.

‘The practical result of this decision, however, on a mathematical basis is that in most cases the damages awarded for fatal accident claims will increase,’ said the firm.

‘Mr Knauer’s damages claim is now expected to increase by around £50,000. It is important that current fatal accident claims reserves are reviewed factoring in this new approach.

‘Defendants or insurers with cases that have settled, but are awaiting court approval, may also face arguments that the settlements should be reviewed and reconsidered in light of this judgment.’

Readers' comments (5)

  • And about time too!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hurrah!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Gavin Edmondson v Haven Insurance; Broadhurst v Tan; and now this. It's nice to see the senior judiciary actually applying the law rather than kicking claimants and their solicitors at every opportunity in the style of the District and Circuit Benches.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Brilliant news

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well well well. Whatever next. Will we get an entire system which is fair to both Defendants, AND Claimants as well?

    I can only dream

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (5)
  • Save


Solicitor fined over £2m SDLT avoidance scheme

21 October 2016By

Kelly Buckle-Fleming acted in transactions where there was a ‘significant risk of conflict’.


MoJ concession on ‘borderline’ legal aid cases

21 October 2016By

Funding may be granted for certain cases with a 45%-50% prospect of success – but still no review date for LASPO.

Kevin Poulter

Posthumous pardons for gay men ‘not enough’

21 October 2016By

Society welcomes move but LGBT committee criticises lack of formal apology.


Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition