Coxon v Flintshire County Council [2001] EWCA Civ 302 (13 February 2001)

Coxon v Flintshire County Council [2001] EWCA Civ 302 (13 February 2001)

The judge was entitled to take a broad approach to causation and damages, given the claimant's pre-existing vulnerabilities and the compounding effect of abuse in care; the awards for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, past and future earnings, and psychotherapy were within reasonable bounds and not so excessive as to be plainly wrong; percentage apportionment was inappropriate in this context.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 302
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Amanda Coxon; Defendant/appellant: Flintshire County Council (Formerly Clwyd County Council)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Psychiatric Injury, Abuse in Care, Causation, Apportionment, False Imprisonment
Tort Personal Injury Child Protection Local Authority Liability Damages Assessment Psychiatric Injury Abuse in Care Causation +2 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Coxon

Claimant/respondent

Flintshire County Council (Formerly Clwyd County Council)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the damages awarded for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, past and future earnings, and psychotherapy were excessive
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in principle or misdirected himself in assessing causation and apportionment
  3. 3 Whether the abuse in care was a significant cause of the claimant's psychiatric injury and loss

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to take a broad approach to causation and damages, given the claimant's pre-existing vulnerabilities and the compounding effect of abuse in care; the awards for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, past and future earnings, and psychotherapy were within reasonable bounds and not so excessive as to be plainly wrong; percentage apportionment was inappropriate in this context.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs on the standard basis, including the cost of the Dr Abel transcript