Julie Johnson v Choice Support

Julie Johnson v Choice Support

The claimant’s solicitors reasonably valued the claim above the protocol limit based on clear instructions and medical evidence; the actions of the vulnerable adult did not amount to harm, abuse or neglect within the meaning of paragraph 4.3(8) of the EL/PL Protocol, so the protocol would apply but for the value assessment.

Parties
Claimant: Julie Johnson; Defendant: Choice Support
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Points of Dispute
Outcome
Finds for the Claimant on the issue of protocol applicability and valuation.
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocol, Employers’ Liability, Public Liability, Vulnerable Adults, Detailed Assessment

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Johnson

Claimant

Choice Support

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Points of Dispute

  1. 1 Whether the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims applies to the case
  2. 2 Whether the claim falls within the exceptions for harm, abuse or neglect of or by vulnerable adults under paragraph 4.3(8) of the EL/PL Protocol
  3. 3 Whether the claimant’s solicitors reasonably valued the claim above the protocol limit

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant’s solicitors reasonably valued the claim above the protocol limit based on clear instructions and medical evidence; the actions of the vulnerable adult did not amount to harm, abuse or neglect within the meaning of paragraph 4.3(8) of the EL/PL Protocol, so the protocol would apply but for the value assessment.

Court Disposition

Finds for the Claimant on the issue of protocol applicability and valuation.

Orders

  • The claimant’s solicitors did not unreasonably value the case in excess of the EL/PL Protocol limit.
  • Protocol would apply but for the reasonably assessed value of the case.