New methodology for calculating accommodation claims - the reversionary interest approach
In a long awaited decision, on 9 October 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down its Judgment in the case of Swift v Carpenter, which changes the methodology for compensating claimants whose disabilities mean that they require rehousing into alternative accommodation.
In a long awaited decision, on 9 October 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down its Judgment in the case of Swift v Carpenter. This changes the methodology for compensating claimants whose disabilities mean that they require rehousing into alternative accommodation.
The dilemma facing the courts has been how to fairly compensate claimants for their additional accommodation costs without providing their estates with the “windfall” of a capital asset after they die.
Whilst the existing 1989 Court of Appeal decision in Roberts v Johnstone provided “authoritative guidance” as to how these losses should be calculated, it did not establish legal principle. The Court of Appeal felt able to revisit that guidance if it was demonstrated to be ineffective in achieving the objective of full (but not over) compensation.
Case summary
Charlotte Swift had, at age 39, been involved in a serious road traffic accident. She had undergone a left below-knee amputation and suffered significant disruption to her right foot. At first Instance, she was awarded damages in excess of £4,000,000. Whilst the Court accepted that she required special accommodation that would cost £900,000 more than her existing home, she was not awarded damages for this head of loss, as the Judge, Mrs Justice Lambert DME, concluded that she was bound by the Roberts v Johnstone approach.
The Claimant appealed and the case was heard at a 3-day remote Hearing at the Court of Appeal commencing on 23 June 2020.
The problem
Since March 2017 the Personal Injury Discount Rate has been set at a negative figure. This has meant that the Roberts v Johnstone methodology (multiplying the capital cost of the property by the discount rate and then by the life multiplier) inevitably also produced a negative figure.
Outcome of the case
The Court unanimously decided that it is no longer a ‘safe prediction’ that property prices will rise or even hold their current value over the ensuing decades and that the Roberts v Johnstone methodology no longer achieved fair compensation.
Instead full (but not over) compensation should be achieved by awarding a sum equivalent to a life interest in the special accommodation that injured Claimants required.
The life interest figure can be calculated by taking the present capital cost of the property (i.e. the difference between the value of the property the Claimant now requires and the property he or she would have required in the uninjured scenario) and deducting the nominal value of the reversionary interest. The Court accepted that there were practical problems associated with calculating the value of the reversionary interest. Whilst a market rate approach was right in principle, there was not a sufficiently active market in the purchase of reversionary interests to set a rate on that basis. On the expert evidence before it the court decided to set the rate at 5%.
The ongoing problem of short life expectancy cases
In Swift, the Claimant’s life expectancy was lengthy. It is notable that in the Leading Judgment Lord Justice Irwin identified that in a short life expectancy case, the value of the reversionary interest would be much higher. Different considerations and arguments could be applied but he declined to express any further view on these. The decision did not deal with other issues that commonly crop up in accommodation claims sure as adaptations and betterment and it will be interesting to see how case law develops in these areas.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Automatic suspension and procurement law
Opinion
Plans to amend NHS pension rules to bolster NHS workforce approved by government
Opinion
Increase to 20 hour limit on supplementary employment for Health and Care Worker visa holders
Legal Update
Supreme Court will hear Worcestershire case on local authority responsibility for Section 117 Aftercare in April 2023
Published Article
Thinking outside the box
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Implementing learning from claims to help improve patient safety
Legal Update
Cauda Equina Syndrome and application of the new GIRFT pathway
Opinion - Maternity services
University Hospital Leicester hold their inaugural Maternity Safety Conference
Opinion
Junior doctors vote unanimously in favour of strike action
Opinion
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Published Article
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
Opinion
Consultation launched on minimum ambulance service levels during strike action
Opinion - Maternity services
Changes to redundancy protections for employees post-maternity leave
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Coroners’ Question Time
On-Demand
Future of Care - Retirement Living webinar
Press Release - Careers
Browne Jacobson health lawyer wins major accolade at Made in Manchester Awards
Opinion
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Legal Update
Employee who refused to wear a face mask fairly dismissed
Opinion
New toolkit to support safer recruitment in the care sector
Legal Update
Green Leases for the NHS
On-Demand
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) in the context of retirement living
Guide
Government response to the consultation on the Higher-Risk Buildings Regulations
Published Article
The first 100 days for Integrated Care Boards
Opinion
Menopause and the workplace
Opinion
Government introduces new “anti-striking laws” to be discussed in Parliament
Press Release - Maternity services
Father Christmas comes to University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire care of Browne Jacobson’s Birmingham Office Community Action Group
Opinion - Maternity services
The Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) and its impact on maternity services
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Looking ahead to 2023 – what Health and Care employers need to know
Opinion
Coroner’s refusal to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths Report following death in prison custody inquest was lawful
Article
Mental health, eating disorders and placement of young people
Legal Update
LPS consultation and ‘go live’ planning
Opinion
Consultation launched on plans to amend NHS pension rules to bolster NHS workforce
Legal Update
Getting ready to face Industrial Action
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Prolonged disorders of consciousness
Online Event
Mock Inquest Training Sessions
Published Article
How AI and technology can transform the healthcare sector
On-Demand
The UK's green agenda - the outcomes of COP27 and actions since COP26
On-Demand
Insights from the Chief Coroner by His Honour Judge Thomas Teague, KC
Opinion
BMA advises consultants not to accept less than the BMA minimum rate card for extra-contractual work
The BMA is advising all NHS / HSCNI consultants to ensure extra-contractual work is paid at the BMA minimum recommended rate and to decline offers of extra-contractual work that doesn't value them appropriately.