Clarke v Taylor [2002] EWCA Civ 1874 (11 November 2002)

Clarke v Taylor [2002] EWCA Civ 1874 (11 November 2002)

The trial judge was entitled to accept the evidence of the claimant and his wife regarding the extent of pain and disability, as this was not inconsistent with the thrust of the medical evidence from Mr Kaye. The judge's approach to assessing damages, including future loss of earnings and special damages, was justified and sustainable on the evidence. There was no arguable error of law or fact warranting appellate intervention.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1874
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Darren Jonathan Clarke; Defendant/appellant: Christine Taylor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Quantum of Damages, Assessment of Evidence, Future Loss of Earnings, Special Damages, Appeal Procedure
Personal Injury Tort Law Quantum of Damages Assessment of Evidence Future Loss of Earnings Special Damages Appeal Procedure

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Jonathan Clarke

Claimant/respondent

Christine Taylor

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in accepting the claimant's and his wife's evidence over the medical experts regarding the extent of injury and pain
  2. 2 Whether the award for damages, particularly for future loss of earnings and special damages, was justified on the evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge's approach to calculation of damages was permissible

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to accept the evidence of the claimant and his wife regarding the extent of pain and disability, as this was not inconsistent with the thrust of the medical evidence from Mr Kaye. The judge's approach to assessing damages, including future loss of earnings and special damages, was justified and sustainable on the evidence. There was no arguable error of law or fact warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused