header-logo header-logo

03 March 2016
Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Knauer changes PI law

The date of trial is the relevant date when assessing damages for fatal accidents, the Supreme Court has held.

The landmark case of Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9 concerned the appropriate date for the assessment of multipliers in claims brought under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976—whether it is the date of death or the date of trial.

Sally Knauer was an administrator at Guy’s Marsh Prison in Dorset, where she was exposed to asbestos. She subsequently contracted mesothelioma and died at the age of 46. Her husband brought a claim for future loss of dependency under the 1976 Act. The respondent admitted liability and legal argument centred on the relevant date for assessing damages.

In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court allowed Knauer’s appeal, holding that the relevant date was the date of trial. This is in line with a recommendation by the Law Commission in their 1999 report, Claims for Wrongful Death. The Justices overturned Cookson v Knowles [1976] AC 556 and Graham v Dodds [1983] 1 WLR 808, which they said were decided at a time when calculation of damages was less sophisticated and did not use actuarial evidence or tables.

Tom Poole, of 3 Hare Court, says: “This is an extremely important development in the law and will be of particular importance to a large number of families who are wrongfully deprived of income and services of a family member. The difference in approach meant an increase in Mr Knauer’s damages of over £50,000 and will likely see larger dependency awards in all fatal accident cases.”

In their judgment, the Justices said that calculating damages for loss of dependency from the date of death, rather than the date of trial, means that the claimant suffers a discount for early receipt of the money when in fact that money will not be received until after trial, a discount that results in under-compensation in most cases.

Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll