Harries v Stevenson

Harries v Stevenson

The Claimant's circumstances do not fall outside the Lord Chancellor's contemplation when setting the prescribed discount rate, nor do they present special features justifying a different rate under section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996. The application is a direct challenge to the prescribed rate, which is not permitted by the authorities. The application is therefore dismissed as unarguable.

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 (ppo), Damages Act 1996 Section 1(2), Case Management
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Damages Discount Rate Periodical Payments Orders (ppo) Damages Act 1996 Section 1(2) 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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 circumstances do not fall outside the Lord Chancellor's contemplation when setting the prescribed discount rate, nor do they present special features justifying a different rate under section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996. The application is a direct challenge to the prescribed rate, which is not permitted by the authorities. The application is therefore dismissed as unarguable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

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