Mehmetemin v Farrell [2017] EWHC 103 (QB) (27 January 2017)

Mehmetemin v Farrell [2017] EWHC 103 (QB) (27 January 2017)

The court held that the claimant is entitled to full but fair compensation for her injuries, including general damages of £80,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity, and special damages as assessed. A 25% deduction applies to gratuitous care, even where a relative gave up work. Claims for extra food and holiday costs were rejected as unproven or too remote. Future care needs were assessed based on a mixed model of commercial and gratuitous care, with hours and rates determined by the court's findings on the evidence.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 103
Parties
Claimant: Sandra Mehmetemin; Defendant: Craig Farrell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Assessment of Damages After Admission of Liability
Outcome
Damages assessed for the claimant as per judgment; specific quantum for each head of loss to be calculated by parties per court's findings.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Future Care Costs, Gratuitous Care, Loss of Earnings, Special Damages, Pain and Suffering
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Future Care Costs Gratuitous Care Loss of Earnings Special Damages Pain and Suffering

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Mehmetemin

Claimant

Craig Farrell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Assessment of Damages After Admission of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for the claimant's injuries and losses?
  2. 2 How should future care needs and costs be assessed?
  3. 3 Is a 25% deduction for gratuitous care appropriate where a relative has given up work?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimant is entitled to full but fair compensation for her injuries, including general damages of £80,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity, and special damages as assessed. A 25% deduction applies to gratuitous care, even where a relative gave up work. Claims for extra food and holiday costs were rejected as unproven or too remote. Future care needs were assessed based on a mixed model of commercial and gratuitous care, with hours and rates determined by the court's findings on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Damages assessed for the claimant as per judgment; specific quantum for each head of loss to be calculated by parties per court's findings.

Orders

  • General damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity awarded at £80,000.
  • Special damages for past and future care, loss of earnings, equipment, therapy, and other heads as assessed, subject to agreed calculations and deductions.