Secretary of State for Defence v Hulme

Secretary of State for Defence v Hulme

The trial judge's awards for general damages, accommodation, and prosthesis costs were within the reasonable range based on the evidence and applicable legal principles; there was no basis for appellate interference. The finding of no measurable chance of future employment was justified on the evidence.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: David Pinnington; Defendant/appellant: Crossleigh Construction
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Future Loss of Earnings, Accommodation Costs, Prosthesis Costs, General Damages
Personal Injury Damages Assessment of Damages Future Loss of Earnings Accommodation Costs Prosthesis Costs General Damages

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Pinnington

Claimant/respondent

Crossleigh Construction

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the award for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity was excessive
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in making no award for residual earning capacity
  3. 3 Whether the award for accommodation costs was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's awards for general damages, accommodation, and prosthesis costs were within the reasonable range based on the evidence and applicable legal principles; there was no basis for appellate interference. The finding of no measurable chance of future employment was justified on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is awarded costs on the standard basis up to 21 days after the Part 36 offer (26 June), thereafter the respondent is awarded costs on an indemnity basis.