This site uses cookies.

Knauer: Supreme Court Allows Appeal: Multiplier Runs From Date of Trial - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers & Hardwicke

02/05/16. The Supreme Court gave judgment in Knauer -v- Ministry [2016] UKSC 9. The court allowed the appeal.  The multiplier in a fatal accident case now runs from the date of trial/assessment and not the date of death. This means that fatal accident awards will now be higher.  There is a greater incentive on defendants to settle cases earlier.

THE JUDGMENT

The court held that the use of the Ogden Tables means that the approach to multipliers is now more scientific. The concerns that governed the previous House of Lords decisions on this point were to a large extent alleviated.

Now the multiplier runs from the date of assessment and not the date of death. In the Knauer case itself this meant that the widow received an additional £50,000.

DISCUSSION OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS

12. If this is now so obvious, why did the House of Lords reach a different conclusion in Cookson v Knowles and Graham v Dodds? The short answer is that both cases were decided in a different era, when the calculation of damages for personal injury and death was nothing like as sophisticated as it now is. In particular, the courts discouraged the use of actuarial tables or actuarial evidence as the basis of assessment, on the ground that they would give “a false appearance of accuracy and precision in a sphere where conjectural estimates have to play a large part”. Hence “[t]he experience of practitioners and judges in applying the normal method is the best primary basis for making assessments”: Lord Pearson in Taylor v O’Connor [1971] AC 115, 140. Rather like...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.