Judgment of Rabot v Hassam & Briggs v Laditan [2023]

We are delighted to announce that the Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the cases of Yoann Samuel Rabot v Charlotte Victoria Hassam and Matthew David Briggs v Boluwatife Laditan [2023] EWCA CIV 19.

In a major victory for claimants, the Court of Appeal has rejected the defendant's submissions concerning mixed injury claims and endorsed the first instance decision of District Judge Hennessey on a majority basis, with the Master of the Rolls dissenting. This has significant implications for claimants and defendants alike, as the Court of Appeal has provided detailed guidance on how damages should be calculated in claims which are submitted using the Official Injury Claim "OIC" process.

With significant importance attached to the concept of concurrent pain, suffering and loss of amenity "PSLA", Lady Justice Nicola Davies re-emphasises that when a claimant sustains tariff and non-tariff injuries where concurrently caused PSLA is present, the court should:

1. assess the tariff award by reference to the regulations;
2. assess the award for non-tariff injuries on common law principles; and
3. "step back" in order to carry out the Sadler adjustment, recognising that the sum included in the tariff award for the whiplash component is unknown but is smaller than it would be if damages for the whiplash component had been assessed applying common law principles.

Distinguishing the approach of District Judge Hennessey, Lady Justice Nicola Davies included a caveat which stated that "the final award cannot be less than would be awarded for the non-tariff injuries if they had been the only injuries suffered by the claimant [para 38]."

Taking account of this altered approach, Lady Justice Nicola Davies reassessed the damages awarded to Mr. Briggs and reduced the non-tariff award by a more modest £340.00 to reflect the concurrent overlap in PSLA, resulting in an increased overall award of £3500.00 [para 41]. The court reaffirmed the award made to Mr. Rabot [para 40], which should provide helpful guidance to claimants who have suffered a tariff injury and single site non-tariff injury.

The defendants sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and we confirmed our intention to cross appeal; however the Court of Appeal has refused permission.

After so much turmoil in the personal injury sector, we are very proud to have led the way in seeking guidance from the Court of Appeal on how damages should be assessed in mixed injury claims. At all times we have acted in the best interests of our clients and the wider sector when pursuing this appeal.

In that regard, we can confirm that we received no funding (which was made available to the defendants and interveners via the MIB) or support from the claimant lobby group in pursing this matter, and we have received no costs for pursuing this matter. Our involvement in this matter was key, as we feel that had we stepped aside, the Court would have been presented with a binary "all or nothing" choice.

The Directors of Robert James Solicitors
Stephen Robert Edwards and Ryan James Siner

Click here to read the full judgment