Swift v Carpenter

Swift v Carpenter

The Court is bound by Roberts v Johnstone and cannot award a capital sum for accommodation where the negative discount rate would otherwise result in overcompensation. The Claimant is entitled to damages for her reasonable needs, including prosthetics, care, equipment, and loss of earnings, assessed conservatively where evidence is limited. The Court allowed the cost of the Meridium prosthesis for life, reasonable care and case management, and made conservative findings on loss of earnings and accommodation running costs. The claim for the capital cost of special accommodation was refused due to binding authority.

Parties
Claimant: Charlotte Swift; Defendant: Malcolm Carpenter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Quantum Assessment After Liability Admitted
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; damages assessed and awarded as per judgment; no award for capital cost of special accommodation due to binding authority.
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Quantum of Damages, Accommodation Claims, Loss of Earnings, Care Costs, Prosthetics, Holiday and Travel Costs
Tort Law Personal Injury Damages Assessment Quantum of Damages Accommodation Claims Loss of Earnings Care Costs Prosthetics +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlotte Swift

Claimant

Malcolm Carpenter

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Quantum Assessment After Liability Admitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the reasonable quantum of damages for the Claimant's injuries and consequential losses?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate approach to accommodation claims given the negative discount rate?
  3. 3 What are the reasonable future care, prosthetics, and equipment needs?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court is bound by Roberts v Johnstone and cannot award a capital sum for accommodation where the negative discount rate would otherwise result in overcompensation. The Claimant is entitled to damages for her reasonable needs, including prosthetics, care, equipment, and loss of earnings, assessed conservatively where evidence is limited. The Court allowed the cost of the Meridium prosthesis for life, reasonable care and case management, and made conservative findings on loss of earnings and accommodation running costs. The claim for the capital cost of special accommodation was refused due to binding authority.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; damages assessed and awarded as per judgment; no award for capital cost of special accommodation due to binding authority.

Orders

  • Damages awarded to the Claimant as quantified in the appended Schedule of Loss, totalling £4,098,051.
  • No award for the capital cost of special accommodation under Roberts v Johnstone.