Remedies Flashcards
Ronan v J Sainsbury plc
The court held that the decision to change careers had been a direct result of the injuries caused by his accident.
Once the claimant had started his university course, it was unreasonable of the defendant to expect him to leave it, and the claimant successfully sued the defendant for loss of future earnings.
Cooke v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust
The court must use the set inflation rates when assessing the cost of future care for the claimant even if it means that the claimant is under compensated.
Doyle v Wallace
A more flexible approach by calculating the damages of loss on the basis of the income that was mid-way between that of a drama teacher and a clerical worker to ensure that the claimant is properly compensated.
H.West and Son Ltd v Shepherd
She was partially unconscious but there was evidence that she had some awareness. Loss of amenity can be claimed even if the claimant is unconscious and not aware of the loss of amenity.
Martin and Browne v Grey
Claimant can claim for losses caused by death.
Donnelly v Joyce
Claim for losses when his mother gave up work to look after him following defendant’s negligence.
Grobbelaar v News Group Newspaper Ltd
Claimant won but as he was a person who had no reputation that was worth protecting, so he was awarded £1.
Watkins v Secretary of State for the Home Department
House of Lords held that the nominal damages should only be awarded in cases that involve torts that are actionable per se, such as assault and battery.
Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside
Court of Appeal awarded the claimant aggravated damages because of the amount of humiliation and distress she suffered on arresr and the willingness of the police to give false evidence against her.
Rookes v Barnard
House of Lords set down when exemplary damages could be granted. The case must fall into one of the three categories:
- Statutory authorisation
- Conduct calculated to make a profit
> Broome v Cassell and Co.
» Awarded exemplary damages as House of Lords took into account the profit that the defendants would have made. It was not necessary that the defendant had actually calculated that the profit would outweigh the damages. The major factor was that the defendant was prepared to hurt someone in order to make a profit.
> John v Mirror Group Newspaper
» High court held that in defamation cases, the jury should be told that the exemplary damages could only be made if the publisher had no genuine belief that the information was true. - Oppressive or unconstitutional conduct by government servants (employees) while carrying out their jobs
> Huckle v Money
» Claimant was awarded exemplary damages because entering a person’s house with a search warrant without a name on it was a serious breach of civil liberties.
> Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
» The court stated that in the cases of oppressive conduct by the police, juries should be told that they may grant compensation at a level that is aimed to punish the defendant.The High Court indicated that these damages were unlikely to be less than £5000, and might be up to £50000 where high-ranking officers such as superintendents were directly involved.
> Muuse v Secretary of State for the Department
» Claimant is awarded exemplary damages because it wanted to express its strong disapproval if the Home Office’s conduct.
Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris
Set out the guidelines for courts to follow when considering whether to grant mandatory injunction.
As the work that the defendant needed to do to provide support cost more than the value of the claimant’s land, so he was allowed to appeal against the injunction.
American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd
Set out guidelines for interlocutory injunction.
Shelfer v City London Electric Lighting
AL Smith LJ stated that damages in lieu of conjunction is a good working rule that:
1. The injury to the claimant’s legal rights is small
2. And is one which is capable of being estimated in money
3. And is one which can be adequately compensated by a small money payment
4. And the case is one in which it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction
then damages in substitution for an injunction may be given.
Regan v Paul Properties
The court held that the losses (the cost of alterations) were only substantial because the defendant had continued to complete the building. The effect of injunction was not oppressive.
Coventry v Lawrence
The Supreme court proposed a more flexible approach that should lead to fewer injunctions and damages becoming a more common alternative remedy.
This view is a departure from judicial trend to award an injunction even when the lost to the claimant was slight and the impact on the defendant severe.
Their Lordships proposed a new test. They held that the default position was to be that an injunction should be granted if the claimant’s rights had been infringed but it is open to the defendant to prove that damages are an appropriate alternative.
> The Shelfer test should not be applied so rigidly.
> An injunction would not be automatically granted, even if all four of the elements in the Shelfer test are not satisfied.
Instructions in Coventry v Lawrence will apply but with the proviso that, as Lord Sumption stated, ‘damages are ordinarily an adequate remedy for nuisance’.
