Clenshaw v Tanner & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1848 (27 November 2002)

Clenshaw v Tanner & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1848 (27 November 2002)

Housing benefit received by the claimant as a result of impecuniosity caused by the tort is deductible from damages for loss of earnings, as there is no statutory provision to the contrary and to avoid overcompensation. The apportionment of liability at 50% each was within the trial judge's discretion and not erroneous. The deductions for loss of earnings and future earnings were justified based on the claimant's pre-existing health and employment record.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1848
Parties
Appellant: Clenshaw; Respondents: Tanner and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Liability, Deduction of Benefits, Loss of Earnings, Damages Assessment
Tort Law Personal Injury Apportionment of Liability Deduction of Benefits Loss of Earnings Damages 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clenshaw

Appellant

Tanner and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the apportionment of liability between the claimant and defendant was correct
  2. 2 Whether the deductions for loss of earnings and housing benefit were properly applied
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages was correctly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

Housing benefit received by the claimant as a result of impecuniosity caused by the tort is deductible from damages for loss of earnings, as there is no statutory provision to the contrary and to avoid overcompensation. The apportionment of liability at 50% each was within the trial judge's discretion and not erroneous. The deductions for loss of earnings and future earnings were justified based on the claimant's pre-existing health and employment record.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs subject to detailed assessment and matters as per draft minute