Heil v Rankin & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 84 (23 March 2000)

Heil v Rankin & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 84 (23 March 2000)

The Court of Appeal has both the responsibility and the power to review and, where appropriate, increase the level of general damages for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases to ensure they remain fair, reasonable, and just in light of current social and economic conditions. This judicial adjustment is not a change in law but an application of existing principles to contemporary circumstances. Retrospective application of revised guidelines is permissible and does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 84
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Heil; Defendants/respondents: Rankin & Anr; Claimants/appellants: Rees & Anr; Defendant/respondent: Mabco (102) Limited; Claimant/appellant: Schofield; Defendant/respondent: Saunders & Taylor Limited; Claimant/appellant: Ramsay; Defendant/respondent: Rivers; Claimant/appellant: Kent; Defendants/respondents: Griffiths & Ors; Claimant/appellant: Warren; Defendant/respondent: Northern General Hospital NHS Trust; Claimant/appellant: Annable; Defendant/respondent: Southern Derbyshire Health Authority; Claimant/appellant: Connolly; Defendant/respondent: Tasker; Amicus Curiae: Amicus Curiae
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conjoined Appeals
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; guidelines for general damages for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases revised upwards.
Legal Topics
Damages, Non Pecuniary Loss, Pain and Suffering, Loss of Amenity, Judicial Guidelines, Retrospective Effect, Judicial Role Vs Legislative Role
Tort Law Personal Injury Damages Non Pecuniary Loss Pain and Suffering Loss of Amenity Judicial Guidelines Retrospective Effect +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heil

Claimant/appellant

Rankin & Anr

Defendants/respondents

Rees & Anr

Claimants/appellants

Mabco (102) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Schofield

Claimant/appellant

Saunders & Taylor Limited

Defendant/respondent

Ramsay

Claimant/appellant

Rivers

Defendant/respondent

Kent

Claimant/appellant

Griffiths & Ors

Defendants/respondents

Warren

Claimant/appellant

Northern General Hospital NHS Trust

Defendant/respondent

Annable

Claimant/appellant

Southern Derbyshire Health Authority

Defendant/respondent

Connolly

Claimant/appellant

Tasker

Defendant/respondent

Amicus Curiae

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conjoined Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should increase the level of general damages for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases as recommended by the Law Commission
  2. 2 Whether such an increase should be made judicially or left to Parliament
  3. 3 Whether retrospective application of increased damages is lawful and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal has both the responsibility and the power to review and, where appropriate, increase the level of general damages for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases to ensure they remain fair, reasonable, and just in light of current social and economic conditions. This judicial adjustment is not a change in law but an application of existing principles to contemporary circumstances. Retrospective application of revised guidelines is permissible and does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; guidelines for general damages for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases revised upwards.

Orders

  • General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) for serious personal injury are to be increased in accordance with the Court's new guidelines, generally by a factor between 1.5 and 2 for awards above £3,000, with tapered increases for awards between £2,001 and £3,000.
  • The revised guidelines apply retrospectively to all cases not finally determined as of the date of this judgment.