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?

Beahan v Stoneham

21 May 2001
The issues

Delay On The Part Of The Claimant – Whether Interest Should Be Significantly Reduced As A Penalty

The facts

The Defendant appealed for an assessment of damages made by the Judge in the West London County Court. The Claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident in 1991 suffering a whiplash and other minor injuries. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder. The Judge awarded a total of £212,549.00 inclusive of interest. The Defendant appealed on the grounds (amongst others) that the Judge was wrong to award interest for the whole period up to Trial (interest amounting to some £50,000.00).

The decision

As a general point an appeal Court would only interfere with the Judge’s decision if it felt bound to conclude that the discretion of the Judge in coming to his decision had been exercised wrongly or if it fell outside the perimeters of reasonable “difference of opinion”. The Judge had heard the evidence and the correct approach was to review that decision but not to start again from scratch.

The Judge was wrong not to reduce interest. The Court had to exercise its discretion to reduce the period for which interest ran where a Claimant was guilty of delay. (See Spittle v Bunney 1998). Indeed since the introduction of the CPR a Court should be more ready to mark its disapproval of delay. In the circumstances of this case interest would run only for a period ending two years before the date of trial.

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