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?

Dorington v Lawrence, Bristol District Registry

26 November 2001
The issues

Brain damage – Quantum – Future care – Discount – Independent living fund – Roberts & Johnson.

The facts

The claimant was knocked from his motorbike by the defendant’s car on the 31 March 1991. He was 20. Liability was settled with judgment settled at 85% in the claimant’s favour. The claimant suffered brain damage. He continued to suffer from epileptic seizures. He had left sided visual loss, left sided limb weakness, left side sensory disorder and serious behaviour disorder. There had been a major deterioration in his physical and intellectual capacity. He had been cared for by mother and sister before trial when 24 hour paid care was to about to be put in place.

The decision

1. General damages of £135,000 would be awarded, which was just below the top end of the bracket since the claimant was still able to do and enjoy some limited things.

2. A discount of one fifth would be made for the commercial care rate in respect of voluntary care.

3. Payments made from Independent Living Fund to help with the cost of paid care was deductible from the award of damage.

4. No Roberts v Johnston award would be made, as claimant would probably have left home and obtained his own accommodation by the relevant date.

5. Although the claimant had only been employed for a short time before the accident as a sales man. It would be reasonable to assume that he would have continued to earn a net average wage of non-manual employees.

6. A multiple of 22.75 was appropriate.

7. There would be no discount for the possibility of continuing family care as 24hr professional care was needed – professional care is assessed at £57,000 per annum.

8. Damages for the future cost of speech, music and occupational therapy would be allowed.

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