Chelfat v Chaudhry's Restaurant Ltd [2019] EWHC 2959 (QB) (05 November 2019)

Chelfat v Chaudhry's Restaurant Ltd [2019] EWHC 2959 (QB) (05 November 2019)

The trial judge erred in categorising the claimant's injuries within a lower bracket of the Judicial College Guidelines, resulting in a wholly erroneous estimate of general damages; the judge also misapplied the costs cap for litigants in person, warranting variation of both damages and costs awards.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2959
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Zehour Chelfat; Respondent/defendant: Chaudhry's Restaurant Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Assessment of Damages and Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order varied
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Costs for Litigant in Person, Food Poisoning, Appeal Procedure
Tort Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Costs for Litigant in Person Food Poisoning Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zehour Chelfat

Appellant/claimant

Chaudhry's Restaurant Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Assessment of Damages and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of general damages for personal injury (food poisoning)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in the summary assessment of costs for a litigant in person

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in categorising the claimant's injuries within a lower bracket of the Judicial College Guidelines, resulting in a wholly erroneous estimate of general damages; the judge also misapplied the costs cap for litigants in person, warranting variation of both damages and costs awards.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order varied

Orders

  • General damages increased to £10,000 with £850 interest; past financial loss £100 with £8.50 interest; total judgment for £10,958.50 in favour of appellant
  • Respondent to pay appellant's costs of £4,440 for proceedings below