Scott (Appellant) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Bahamas)

Scott (Appellant) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Bahamas)

There is no binding principle requiring an uplift to English JSB guidelines for general damages in the Bahamas absent evidence of cost of living differences; awards should reflect local conditions and expectations, and the Court of Appeal did not err in its approach except for failing to compensate for certain head injury symptoms.

Citation
[2017] UKPC 15
Parties
Appellant: Shorn Scott; Respondents: The Attorney General and another (Bahamas)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Privy Council From Court of Appeal of the Bahamas
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, General Damages, Paraplegia, Loss of Amenity, Judicial Guidelines, Comparative Law
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages General Damages Paraplegia Loss of Amenity Judicial Guidelines Comparative Law

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shorn Scott

Appellant

The Attorney General and another (Bahamas)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Privy Council From Court of Appeal of the Bahamas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an uplift should be applied to English Judicial Studies Board (JSB) guidelines for general damages to reflect Bahamian conditions
  2. 2 Whether loss of bladder and bowel function and loss of sexual sensation require separate assessment from paraplegia
  3. 3 Whether the award for head injury was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

There is no binding principle requiring an uplift to English JSB guidelines for general damages in the Bahamas absent evidence of cost of living differences; awards should reflect local conditions and expectations, and the Court of Appeal did not err in its approach except for failing to compensate for certain head injury symptoms.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Compensation to appellant increased by B$1,940 for head injury symptoms.
  • Parties to make written submissions on costs within 21 days.