0370 270 6000

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

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