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 circumstances relied upon did not constitute special features or a category not contemplated by the Lord Chancellor when setting the prescribed discount rate. The application was a direct challenge to the prescribed rate, which is not permitted under settled law. Section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996 can only be invoked in exceptional cases with special features not already considered by the Lord Chancellor, which was not established here.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3447
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
Clinical Negligence Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Preliminary Issue Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages Calculation, Discount Rate, Periodical Payments Orders (ppos), Damages Act 1996 Section 1(2), Case Management
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Damages Calculation Discount Rate Periodical Payments Orders (ppos) 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 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

Clinical Negligence Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Preliminary Issue Determination

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 circumstances relied upon did not constitute special features or a category not contemplated by the Lord Chancellor when setting the prescribed discount rate. The application was a direct challenge to the prescribed rate, which is not permitted under settled law. Section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996 can only be invoked in exceptional cases with special features not already considered by the Lord Chancellor, which was not established here.

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.