Prigmore v Welbourne

Prigmore v Welbourne

The District Judge erred in permitting joint actuarial evidence because the main issue was one of legal principle, not calculation, and actuarial evidence was unnecessary and inadmissible on the established law. The discretion was exercised on an erroneous basis, conflating principle and calculation, and the order for a joint expert report must be rescinded.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Robert Prigmore (personal representative of the Estate of Anne Prigmore deceased); Defendant/appellant: Graham Welbourne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Fatal Accident Act Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Appeal From Case Management Order (permission to Adduce Joint Actuarial Evidence)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fatal Accidents, Multipliers in Damages, Expert Evidence, Case Management Discretion
Tort Civil Procedure Fatal Accidents Multipliers in Damages Expert Evidence Case Management Discretion

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Prigmore (personal representative of the Estate of Anne Prigmore deceased)

Claimant/respondent

Graham Welbourne

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Fatal Accident Act Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Appeal From Case Management Order (permission to Adduce Joint Actuarial Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in permitting joint actuarial evidence on the calculation of multipliers in a Fatal Accident Act claim
  2. 2 Whether actuarial evidence was necessary or admissible given the established legal principles on calculation of multipliers

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred in permitting joint actuarial evidence because the main issue was one of legal principle, not calculation, and actuarial evidence was unnecessary and inadmissible on the established law. The discretion was exercised on an erroneous basis, conflating principle and calculation, and the order for a joint expert report must be rescinded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for joint expert actuarial report rescinded
  • Costs to be assessed or agreed, subject to further submissions if any