Smithurst v Sealant Construction Services Ltd
The judge was wrong to treat the issue as one of causation rather than assessment of damages, but the acceleration approach to damages was permissible and fairly reflected the medical evidence; the appeal is dismissed.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Mark Simon Smithurst; Defendant/respondent: Sealant Construction Services Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 03 November 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Assessment of Damages After Liability Admitted
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Causation, Assessment of Damages, Acceleration Principle, Contributory Negligence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mark Simon Smithurst
Claimant/appellant
Sealant Construction Services Ltd
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Assessment of Damages After Liability Admitted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in applying the 'but for' test of causation rather than assessing the risk of future injury for damages purposes
- 2 Whether the acceleration approach to damages was appropriate given the medical evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The judge was wrong to treat the issue as one of causation rather than assessment of damages, but the acceleration approach to damages was permissible and fairly reflected the medical evidence; the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Assessment of damages to proceed on the basis that the accident accelerated the claimant's condition by two years.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment