Harries v Stevenson [2012] EWHC 3447 (QB) (30 November 2012)

Harries v Stevenson [2012] EWHC 3447 (QB) (30 November 2012)

The claimant's application was dismissed because the inability to make a periodical payments order due to the defendant's lack of reasonable security does not constitute a special feature or category not contemplated by the Lord Chancellor when setting the prescribed discount rate. The claimant's case amounted to a direct challenge to the prescribed rate, which is not permitted under established authority unless exceptional circumstances are shown, which was not the case here.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3447 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Dean Harries (a child by his mother & litigation friend, Sharon Sally Harries); Defendant: Dr Alan David Stevenson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/clinical Negligence / Application for Determination of Preliminary Point of Law Prior to Quantum Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages, Discount Rate, Periodical Payments Orders (ppos), Damages Act 1996, Case Management
Personal Injury Clinical Negligence Civil Procedure Damages Discount Rate Periodical Payments Orders (ppos) Damages Act 1996 Case Management

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

Parties

Robert Dean Harries (a child by his mother & litigation friend, Sharon Sally Harries)

Claimant

Dr Alan David Stevenson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/clinical Negligence / Application for Determination of Preliminary Point of Law Prior to Quantum Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to seek an award of damages based on a discount rate different from that set by the Lord Chancellor under section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996, in circumstances where a periodical payments order cannot be made due to lack of reasonable security.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's application was dismissed because the inability to make a periodical payments order due to the defendant's lack of reasonable security does not constitute a special feature or category not contemplated by the Lord Chancellor when setting the prescribed discount rate. The claimant's case amounted to a direct challenge to the prescribed rate, which is not permitted under established authority unless exceptional circumstances are shown, which was not the case here.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's application for determination of a preliminary issue regarding the discount rate is dismissed.
  • No directions given for expert evidence on the discount rate at trial.