26 June 2017
In Lamarieo Manna v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, [2017] EWCA Civ 12 (‘Manna’) the Court of Appeal recently considered the question of when two houses make a home in the context of a Roberts v Johnstone, 1998 (‘R v J’) calculation.
At first instance, the Claimant was held to be entitled to recover the costs associated with the acquisition of a second property in which he would live with his father (he lived with his mother most of the time who remained his principal carer). It was against that conclusion that the appeal was taken.
The appeal focussed on the fact that the Claimant had seen his father on a handful of occasions since 2013, there had been no contact since January 2014 and there was no guarantee the expressed intention to resume contact would endure. This argument was rejected on appeal. Whilst the Court of Appeal regarded the award of a second home as generous and emphasised that the award was ‘intensely fact dependent’, it accepted that it was in the Claimant’s best interest for the relationship with his natural father to be restored. It highlighted that the judgment at first instance ought not to be regarded as establishing a precedent. The award of R v J damages fell within the ambit of the reasonable decision making powers of the Judge at first instance. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal was not persuaded it would be justified in setting aside the award.
The other argument advanced by the Defendant related to the appropriate multiplier to be adopted when considering R v J damages. The Defendant’s proposition was that the multiplier ought to have been assessed by reference to the Claimant’s father’s lifetime multiplier, as opposed to the Claimant’s lifetime multiplier. The use of the Claimant’s lifetime multiplier served to increase the level of the award. Nonetheless, at first instance the Defendants did not object to the use of the Claimant’s lifetime multiplier. On appeal, they sought to justify not having raised the point at first instance on the basis that they had focused on simply defeating the claim on the grounds it lacked merit.
The Court dismissed the appeal commenting that it was optimistic on the part of the Defendants to seek to appeal against a critical aspect of the calculation which had not been challenged at first instance. The Defendant’s challenge was an afterthought and was too late for them to be allowed to suggest that an alternative R v J model was appropriate.
The decision in Manna again demonstrates the willingness of the Courts to consider the realities of modern living when assessing the basis / calculation of compensatory awards of damages.
Contact:
 |
|
Mark Hastings |