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?

Geest Plc v Lansiquot (Privy Counsel)

15 October 2002
The issues

Damages – mitigation – refusal to undertake medical treatment.

The facts

This was an Appeal from the High Court of St Lucia

The Claimant suffered a back injury. There was the possibility that she could undergo a surgical operation to improve her pain. She had been told that the operation was the only way that the pain would be improved, but that its success could not be guaranteed. She decided against the operation. The Defendant argued that this was unreasonable of her and that she had failed to mitigate her loss.

The decision

1. A previous decision of the Board in Selvanayagam -v- The University of the West Indies could no longer be relied upon as an accurate statement of the law.

2. The burden was on the Defendant to prove failure by the Claimant to mitigate damage and not on the Claimant to show that her refusal to undertake the operation was reasonable.

3. On the evidence, there was nothing to suggest that the Claimant had been unreasonable.

4. On a general point, where a Defendant alleged that a Claimant had failed to mitigate, notice should be given long enough before the Hearing to enable the Claimant to meet that case. If there were no pleadings, the notice should be given by letter.

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