0370 270 6000

Griffiths v British Coal Corporation, Court of Appeal, 27 February 2001

9 April 2001
The issues

Compensation Recovery Unit Benefit

The facts

1. Whether benefits are recoupable as against interest in respect of the relevant head of damage as opposed to damages paid in respect of the head of damage itself.

2. Whether benefits provided in respect of care could be offset against the cost of care gratuitously provided.

The decision

1. Interest – interest on compensation could probably be considered to be compensation itself. There was no reason why a Claimant entitled to interest in respect of financial losses (which he had not in fact sustained) should be paid interest in those circumstances and accordingly the compensator was entitled to offset against the interest itself.

2. Care – it would be manifestingly unjust if the Compensator was not entitled to offset reimbursement of care benefits against liability to pay special damages in respect of care gratously provided.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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