0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Coxon v Flintshire County Council (formerly Clwyd County Council), Court of Appeal

19 February 2001
The issues

Child Abuse – Quantum of Damages – Applicability or Otherwise of the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines

The facts

The Claimant was a victim of her parent’s physical and emotional abuse and was bullied at school. At the age of 14 she was taken into the care of the Local Authority. She was bullied by her fellow inmates without intervention by staff and subsequently was subjected to physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of members of staff. On leaving the home she was placed with Foster Parents. She had a series of temporary jobs and developed a serious drink problem. She was left damaged and vulnerable. She became involved in drugs and married a heavy drug taker. She suffered from panic attacks, self-destructive behaviour. She met an older man who bullied her and blackmailed her to stay with him.

In the course of the North Wales Children’s Home litigation she was awarded £35,000.00 for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, £20,000.00 for loss of past earnings, £5,000.00 for future loss and £10,000.00 for the cost of future psychotherapy. The Local Authority appealed against the finding in respect of general damages arguing that this was not a case that fell into the category of severe psychiatric damage as defined in the JSB. It argued that the maximum that should have been awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity was £10,000.00.

The decision

The Court of Appeal was far from satisfied that the JSB applied in cases of this kind. Physical emotional and sexual abuse fell into a category wholly different from psychiatric damage that followed up personal injuries. There was therefore no definable bracket into which to place the case. The Judge was correct to take a broad-brush approach and could not be criticised for his findings of quantum.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up