Flora v Wakom (Heathrow) Ltd

Flora v Wakom (Heathrow) Ltd

Section 2(8) of the Damages Act 1996 sets RPI indexation as the default for periodical payments, but s 2(9) allows the court to order a different index whenever it appears just, without requiring exceptional circumstances. The claimant is entitled to advance arguments and adduce expert evidence for an alternative index at trial.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Tarlochan Singh Flora; Defendant/appellant: Wakom (Heathrow) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (strike Out Application)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages, Periodical Payments, Statutory Interpretation, Indexation of Damages
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Damages Periodical Payments Statutory Interpretation Indexation of 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarlochan Singh Flora

Claimant/respondent

Wakom (Heathrow) Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (strike Out Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of s 2(8) and (9) of the Damages Act 1996 regarding indexation of periodical payments for future pecuniary loss in personal injury cases
  2. 2 Whether the court may order indexation by reference to an index other than RPI only in exceptional circumstances or whenever just

Ratio Decidendi

Section 2(8) of the Damages Act 1996 sets RPI indexation as the default for periodical payments, but s 2(9) allows the court to order a different index whenever it appears just, without requiring exceptional circumstances. The claimant is entitled to advance arguments and adduce expert evidence for an alternative index at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant is permitted to advance his statement of case and adduce expert evidence at trial.
  • The application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords is refused.