Freeman v Lockett [2006] EWHC 102 (QB) (07 February 2006)

Freeman v Lockett [2006] EWHC 102 (QB) (07 February 2006)

The court held that it would be wrong in principle and unsatisfactory in practice to reduce the claimant's damages for future care to reflect the possibility of continued local authority funding. The future availability, level, and terms of such funding are uncertain and subject to change, and the claimant should not be required to bear the risk of future political or administrative decisions affecting her care. The purpose of damages is to secure her reasonable needs as assessed at trial, not to relegate her to reliance on state provision. Failure to seek or accept such funding does not amount to a failure to mitigate loss.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 102 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Maria Louise Freeman; Defendant: Christopher Hallas Lockett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Assessment / Post Liability, Quantum Determination
Outcome
Claimant awarded lump sum damages without deduction for potential future local authority funding.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Double Recovery, State Benefits and Compensation, Future Care Costs, Mitigation of Loss
Tort Law Personal Injury Damages Assessment of Damages Double Recovery State Benefits and Compensation Future Care Costs Mitigation of Loss

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Louise Freeman

Claimant

Christopher Hallas Lockett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Assessment / Post Liability, Quantum Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's damages for future care should be reduced to reflect the prospect of continued local authority funding for her care needs
  2. 2 Whether failure to seek or accept state funding constitutes a failure to mitigate loss

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it would be wrong in principle and unsatisfactory in practice to reduce the claimant's damages for future care to reflect the possibility of continued local authority funding. The future availability, level, and terms of such funding are uncertain and subject to change, and the claimant should not be required to bear the risk of future political or administrative decisions affecting her care. The purpose of damages is to secure her reasonable needs as assessed at trial, not to relegate her to reliance on state provision. Failure to seek or accept such funding does not amount to a failure to mitigate loss.

Court Disposition

Claimant awarded lump sum damages without deduction for potential future local authority funding.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant a lump sum of £5,546,245 for damages, including future care costs.
  • No deduction to be made from the award for possible future state funding of care.