Hassam & Anor v Rabot & Anor [2024] UKSC 11 (26 March 2024)
Citation: Hassam & Anor v Rabot & Anor [2024] UKSC 11 (26 March 2024)
Rule of thumb: How much compensation for whiplash injuries under the new statutory regime? It is complicated & the statutory provisions have to be followed, but as a basic rule of thumb, damages for (i) pain & suffering, and (ii) loss of amenity (unable to do leisure activities) are added together, then roughly 75% of this is taken as the final figure to avoid overlap & double remuneration. For example, £2,750 pain & suffering, and £1,000 for loss of amenity, totalling £3,750, then reduced by 75% to avoid overlap giving a final sum of roughly £3,000.
Background facts: This case invoked the subjects of remedies & road traffic accidents.
This was a test case in the subjects of road traffic law & remedies. The basic facts were that the 2 people had whiplash injuries – this involved a sum for pain & suffering, and another one for loss of amenities (unable to do their usual leisure activities – going to the gym, walks etc).
Court held:
Ratio-decidendi: The Court held that the system is that these 2 sums have to be added together then a 75-80% taken of what the damages were to avoid overlap (exact figures vary from case to case & interest also has to be taken into account). This means that whatever the total is, it is then reduced. This is the position at common law where there are multiple different physically, however, this was not previously done for physical injuries & psychological injuries, but this is what the Act introduces to reform this area.
‘In Mr Rabot’s case, the District Judge assessed the tariff amount for the WLI at £1,390 and the NWLI damages, assessed at common law, at £2,500, producing an initial total of £3,890. As Mr Rabot’s PSLA was concurrently caused by the WLIs and NWLIs, the District Judge stepped back and reduced Mr Rabot’s total damages to £3,100. Mr Briggs’ tariff amount was assessed at £840 with NWLI damages at £3,000, producing an initial total of £3,840. Again, the PSLA was caused concurrently by WLIs and NWLIs. The District Judge reduced Mr Briggs’ total damages to £2,800.
10. The correct approach step-by-step: Having explained why the third approach is the correct approach, including explaining why the other two approaches are flawed, it may be helpful to those applying this judgment to spell out precisely what that correct approach requires. In this respect, I am confirming and filling out what Nicola Davies LJ said at para 38 of her judgment (see para 32(vi) above). Where the claimant is seeking damages for PSLA in respect of whiplash injuries (covered by the 2018 Act) and non-whiplash injuries a court should:
(i) Assess the tariff amount by applying the table in the 2021 Regulations. (ii) Assess the common law damages for PSLA for the non-whiplash injuries. (iii) Add those two amounts together. (iv) Step back and consider whether one should make an adjustment applying Sadler. The adjustment (which in this context will almost always be a deduction rather than an addition) must reflect, albeit in a rough and ready way, the need to avoid double recovery for the same PSLA. The court must respect the fact that the legislation has laid down a tariff amount for the whiplash injuries that is not aiming for full compensation: in that respect, the Sadler adjustment is a slightly different exercise than if one were dealing entirely with the common law assessment of damages for multiple injuries. (v) If it is decided that a deduction is needed that must be made from the common law damages. (vi) However, and this is what Nicola Davies LJ described as the "caveat", the final award cannot be lower than would have been awarded as common law damages for PSLA for the non-whiplash injuries had the claim been only for those injuries.
Finally, I should add for completeness that, although not in issue in these appeals, where the exceptionality requirement applies (see paras 22 and 24 above), the tariff amount being assessed at the first step (see para 52(i)) may be increased by up to 20%. 11. Conclusion The appeals of the defendants (advocating the first approach) are therefore dismissed as are the cross-appeals of the claimants (advocating the second approach)’.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.