Report comment

A thoroughly bizarre set of propositions.

Imagine the cap for damages, including residual earnings is capped at 3x the median average.

Take for example the suggestion that there would be a cap on damages for loss of earnings, let us take a consultant in the NHS earning £130k. He has a wife who does not work and three children. His mortgage is £4500 a month. As a consequence of the negligence of the defendant he is unable to continue as a surgeon and his residual earning capacity is £25k.

Now a familial income of £75k does not put the family in the bottom quartile but equally this does not allow them to remain in the family home or maintain the families lifestyle.

The number of high earners injured so as to have large claims for future loss of earnings is vanishingly rare and to suggest sacrificing such a basis principle as restitution on the altar founded on such flawed logic and tenuous evidence is at best bizarre.