This site uses cookies.

Pleading and proving mitigation of loss: Mathieu v Hinds & Anor [2022] EWHC 924 (QB) - Rochelle Powell, Temple Garden Chambers

25/04/22. The judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in this case deals with a number of interesting issues. This article focuses on pleading and proving mitigation of loss.

The claimant, Manuel Mathieu, was an up and coming artist, studying for a Masters’ degree in Fine Art at Goldsmiths College. On 28 November 2015 he was struck by a stolen moped, driven by Tony Hinds and insured by Aviva plc. Liability was admitted. The claimant sustained a serious brain injury in the incident. However, he made a good recovery and went on to become an established and successful artist. The claimant’s case was that the headaches, fatigue and cognitive issues from which he continued to suffer as a consequence of his brain injury, had hampered his productivity. As a result, he was not able to produce and sell as much art as he would otherwise have been able to. The second defendant accepted that the claimant suffered a serious injury for which he is entitled to some damages, but contended that the claimant had failed to mitigate his loss by not pursuing (a) treatment aimed at preventing headaches; and (b) further fatigue management sessions.

The Law

Mrs Justice Hill provided a helpful review of the well-established general legal principles relating to the mitigation of loss at [87]-[92]. In summary:

(i) A claimant must take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss consequent upon the defendant’s breach and will be debarred from claiming “any part of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps” (British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd (No. 2) [1912] AC 673 at 689, per Viscount Haldane LC).

(ii) In mitigating their loss, a claimant is only required to...

Image ©

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.