Maximising

Minimising

·        The test is provision to meet C’s reasonable needs – is does not have to be the cheapest available: Rilas v Mitchell (1984, The Times)

·        Include betterment in Roberts v Johnstone calculation

·        Only give credit for 50% of starter home property if it is likely that it would have been bought with a partner or friend: M v Leeds HA [2002] PIQR Q46

·        Costs of house move: (i) survey; (ii) conveyancing costs; (iii) Land Registry etc); (iv) moving costs; (vi) miscellaneous

·        Adaptations – NB include contingency fee

·        Increased running costs including: (i) insurance; (ii) household bills, (iii) Council Tax; (iv) home maintenance; (v) gardening (see Parkhouse v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] Lloyd’s Rep Med 100)

·        New fixtures, fitting, carpets, light fitting etc when move house

·        Furnishing to carers bedroom

·        No credit for parents living rent free or larger house: Parkhouse v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] Lloyd’s Rep Med 100; M v Leeds HA [2002] PIQR Q46

·        Adaptations to family and friends properties: Biescheuval v Birrell [1999] PIQR Q40.

·        Local authority provision

·        Supported by the medical evidence

·        Reasonable and necessary must be supported by the medical evidence

·        Swimming pools: Cassel v Riverside HA [1992] PIQR Q1 cf Haines v Airedale NHS Trust (2.5.00, unreported) and Willett v North Bedfordshire HA [1993] PIQR Q166.

·        Credit for expenses that would have been incurred in any event

·        Betterment due to increase in value because of adaptations or extension: Almond v Leeds Western HA [1990] 1 Med LR 370;  Willett v North Bedfordshire HA [1993] PIQR Q166

·        Credit for windfall re house price increase? (see O’Brien v Harris (22 February 2001, unreported)

·        Two bites of the cherry not necessarily reasonable: O’Brien v Harris (22 February 2001, unreported)

·        Assumed that C will live in the same property for the rest of his or her life unless medical evidence supports another move (see Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] EWHC 2091).

·        Property not meeting needs or wishes: Willbye v Gibbons [2003] EWCA 372

·        Discount for extent of matrimonial contributions in absence of negligence: Goldfinch v Scannell [1993] PIQR Q143.

Maximising

Minimising

·        Visiting C in hospital: see e.g. Owen v Brown [2002] EWHC 1135 (QB)

·        Up to date rates in light of petrol price increases

·        Regular replacement because car needs to be reliable

·        Increased mileage (i) medical and treatment appointments etc; (ii) unable to walk (additional expenses for short journeys which otherwise would have been done on foot and now have to be made by car or public transport)

·        Increased insurance (especially where carers are likely to be under the age of 25)

·        RAC / AA

·        Service call

·        No proof of expenses: Hughes v Addis (23 March 2000, unreported), CA

·        Medico-legal visits and appointments with solicitor / counsel = costs not damages: O’Brien v King Phillips [1997] CLY 1814; Morris v Johnson Matthey (1967) 112 SJ 32

·        Distinguish between social contact and aiding recovery: Havenhand v Jeffrey (24.2.97, CA, unreported)

·        AA tables – restrict recovery to running costs where vehicle not purchased as a result of injuries

·        Credit for (i) resale value of car purchased; and (ii) car would have purchased in any event

·        ? whether RAC /AA subscription is related to the injuries

Maximising

Minimising

·        s 2(4) LR(PI)A 1948 – the reasonable cost of providing aids and equipment should still be recoverable even if the aids and equipment claimed may be available free on the NHS or from Social Services: Bishop v Hannaford (21 December 1988, unreported), Otton J (as he then was); Parkhouse v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] Lloyd’s Rep Med 100; Eagle v Chambers (No 2) [2004] EWCA Civ 1033.  See also Pennington v Crossleigh Construction [2003] EWCA 1684 in respect of a claim for prosthetics.

·        Cover need and desire for items in witness evidence

·        Replacement of future items

·        Accessories – spare batteries, tyres, waterproof capes etc.

·        Insurance

·        Extended warranties

·        Maintenance/servicing of electrical items

·        Occupational therapy assessments

·        Information technology / environmental controls

·        Occupational therapy input

·        Whether claim is reasonable and proportionate

·        Items not supported by the medical evidence: Cottrell v Redbridge Healthcare NHS Trust (2001) 61 BMLR 72

·        Standard items: see Parkhouse v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] Lloyd’s Rep Med 100; O’Brien v Harris (22 February 2001, unreported), QBD; Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] EWHC 2091, QB.

·        Items that might have been required in any event due to pre-existing injuries: Taylor v Weston AHA [2003] All ER (D) 50

·        C lacks capacity to make use of the item sought: Dorrington v Lawrence (9 November 2001, unreported)

·        Items not wanted or unlikely to be used: Blair v Michelin Tyre (25 January 2002, unreported)

·        Reduced multiplier (usually the lifetime multiplier minus 1) for replacements, warranties and  servicing / maintenance

·        Credit for items that might have been required anyway