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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll