Sadler v Filipiak & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1728 (10 October 2011)

Sadler v Filipiak & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1728 (10 October 2011)

The trial judge erred in his approach by first fixing an overall figure and then subsuming figures for individual injuries within it, without properly standing back to assess whether the aggregate was reasonable for the totality of the injuries. The award of £32,000 was manifestly too low given the nature and duration of the claimant's injuries, and a proper assessment required a higher global figure. The Court of Appeal substituted an award of £40,000 for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1728
Parties
Applicant: Sadler; Respondents: Filipiak & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Quantum of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal refused
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Pain and Suffering, Loss of Amenity, Quantum Appeals, Multiple Injuries, Judicial Studies Board Guidelines
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Pain and Suffering Loss of Amenity Quantum Appeals Multiple Injuries Judicial Studies Board Guidelines

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sadler

Applicant

Filipiak & Anr

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Quantum of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the approach to the assessment of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in a case involving multiple injuries
  2. 2 Whether the award of £32,000 was manifestly too low and justified appellate interference
  3. 3 Whether the judge's methodology in aggregating or discounting component awards was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in his approach by first fixing an overall figure and then subsuming figures for individual injuries within it, without properly standing back to assess whether the aggregate was reasonable for the totality of the injuries. The award of £32,000 was manifestly too low given the nature and duration of the claimant's injuries, and a proper assessment required a higher global figure. The Court of Appeal substituted an award of £40,000 for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal refused

Orders

  • Award of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity increased to £40,000
  • Application for cross-appeal by respondents refused