Steele v The Home Office [2010] EWCA Civ 724 (25 June 2010)

Steele v The Home Office [2010] EWCA Civ 724 (25 June 2010)

The Home Office breached its duty of care by failing to provide or consider alternative dental care arrangements when the claimant could not access the available dentist, and by maintaining a 'one dentist take it or leave it' policy. However, the award of general damages for pain and suffering was excessive and should be reduced to align with comparable personal injury awards.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 724
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michael Steele; Defendant/appellant: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central London Civil Justice Centre
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; general damages reduced; all other aspects of the appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Damages, Provision of Medical Care in Prisons
Tort Law Prison Law Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Damages Provision of Medical Care in Prisons

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Steele

Claimant/respondent

The Home Office

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central London Civil Justice Centre

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Home Office breached its duty of care in failing to provide adequate dental treatment to a prisoner during specified periods
  2. 2 Whether the quantum of general damages awarded for pain and suffering was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Home Office breached its duty of care by failing to provide or consider alternative dental care arrangements when the claimant could not access the available dentist, and by maintaining a 'one dentist take it or leave it' policy. However, the award of general damages for pain and suffering was excessive and should be reduced to align with comparable personal injury awards.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; general damages reduced; all other aspects of the appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Award of £45,000 general damages quashed and substituted with £25,000.
  • Award of £16,000 for pecuniary loss upheld.