Hiom v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2010] EWHC 1183 (QB) (28 May 2010)

The court assessed damages based on the claimant's actual pre-accident earnings and prospects, found the psychiatric injury to be mild, and awarded general and special damages accordingly, including a Blamire award for future disadvantage in the labour market.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2010] EWHC 1183
Parties: Claimant: Andrew Sean Hiom; Defendant: WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 28 May 2010
Procedural Posture: Personal Injury / Quantum of Damages Determination After Liability Admitted
Outcome: Damages awarded to claimant
Legal Topics: Assessment of Damages, Loss of Earnings, Pain and Suffering, Psychiatric Injury, Special Damages, General Damages

Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Loss of Earnings Pain and Suffering Psychiatric Injury Special Damages General Damages

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Andrew Sean Hiom

Claimant

WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Quantum of Damages Determination After Liability Admitted

Legal Issues

1 Assessment of quantum for personal injury including physical and psychiatric harm
2 Appropriate calculation of past and future loss of earnings
3 Entitlement to special damages for care, equipment, and rehabilitation

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Damages awarded to claimant

Orders

General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity: £24,000
Blamire award for future disadvantage: £25,000

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.