Thompson v Arnold

Last updated

Thompson v Arnold
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court High Court of Justice
Full case nameThompson & Ors v Arnold
Started5 June 2007
Decided6 August 2007
Citation(s)[2007] EWHC 1875 (QB)
Cases cited
  • Read v Great Eastern Railway (1868) LR 3 QB 555)
  • Riverlate Properties Limited v Paul [1975] Ch 133
  • Thomas Bates Limited v Wyndham's Limited (Lingerie) Limited [1981] 1 WLR 505
  • George Wimpey UK Ltd. V VI Construction Ltd. [2005] EWCA 77
  • Harris v Empress Motors [1984] 1 WLR 212
  • Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27
  • Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd. [1980] AC 136 (...)
Legislation cited
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mr Justice Langstaff
Keywords

Thompson & Ors v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875(QB), was a law on damages case where the existing case law ( Read v Great Eastern Railway (1868) LR 3 QB 555) [4] reaffirmed that damages awarded for a claim for personal injury were deemed to have already been awarded, even if death ensued as a consequence of personal injury. [5] Where a claimant had settled their damages claim, or pursued it to trial, their dependants would have no right of action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 if the injury later proved fatal. [6] Langstaff J. held that Read v Great Eastern Railway had been correctly decided as a matter of statutory construction and neither Article 6 nor Article 8 of the ECHR had been infringed. The claim was dismissed. [7]

Contents

Facts

At the age of 31, Wendy Thompson consulted her GP, the defendant, Doctor Christine Arnold, about a lump on her left breast which was diagnosed by the defendant as benign, when it was not. By the time it became apparent that the diagnosis had been negligently made, it was too late to save Mrs Thompson's life. In all probability, she may not have died if the correct diagnosis had been made. [7]

At the point she became aware that a cause of action was possible against her former doctor, she was already terminally ill, however, she managed to serve proceedings against her former doctor by September 1999. It was predicted that she would die of cancer at some point within the next year. Her lifetime action was settled for the sum of £120,000 in "full and final satisfaction of her claim", however, she had first obtained judgment in default of defence because liability was not in question at that stage. [8]

It ought to have been well known by any reasonably proficient personal injury practitioner that case law (Read v Great Eastern Railway (1868) LR 3 QB 555) had established well over a hundred years before that where a claimant pursued to judgment or settlement a claim for damages for an injury which subsequently proved fatal their dependants could have no right of action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.

The Hon. Mr Justice Langstaff,BAILII transcript [9]

The schedule of loss and damage described in the particulars of claim of September 1999 contained a statement that after her death, her dependants would be able to issue a separate claim pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. However, her legal representatives appeared to have been unaware that a Fatal Accidents Act claim could not be brought by dependants in the situation where the deceased had already been awarded damages.

Wendy Thompson died on 10 April 2002. Three years later her husband and two daughters issued a claim against Dr Arnold under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. [7] When the case came before the High Court on 7 April 2005, the defence sought direction on the preliminary issue that the action could not be brought since the damages claim of the deceased had been settled during her lifetime. [8]

Judgment

It was held that the dependants of an accident victim who had already received a compensation award for personal injury which later prove fatal were unable to make a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. [6] [10] More specifically, an action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 cannot be brought where there has been full and final settlement of a claim made under The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, also known as a LR(MP)A claim. [11]

The alternative construction of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, as argued by Counsel for Mrs Thompson’s family, would have been that the dependants would have been permitted a right of action for financial dependency [lower-alpha 1] on the injured person's death, even though the injured person might have already settled a claim for loss of earnings “during the lost years” and within the deceased's lifetime. [3] [12] Langstaff J stated that in effect, the fatality would be the circumstance which engaged the right of action under FAA 1976 in the first place and it followed that this would have given rise to the prospect of "impermissible double recovery" [2] which would have been an abuse of process. [1]

Interaction of statute

As part of the judgment, a contrasted approach was taken to the interaction of the two statutes: [13] The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, as follows: [14]

Under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, a damages claim: [15]

Under The Fatal Accidents Act 1976, a damages claim: [17]

Mistake and duty

At an early stage, prior to pleadings being issued, a mistake of law had been made by the head of the solicitor and counsel for the claimant. [7] The mistake was that the legal representatives appeared to be unaware that a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act could not be brought where the deceased had already been awarded, or had agreed, damages for their injury. This had the effect of the damages claim being erroneously and deliberately overvalued. [18] The claim which had been settled for £120,000 did not include an amount for future loss of earnings, or rather, the “lost years”. The defendant's solicitor did not inform the claimant's legal advisors of the mistake because she believed, "consistent with her professional duty to her client", that she should not point out the mistake to the opponent. [7] [18]

When proceedings were brought, the mistake of law by the late Mrs Thompson’s solicitor and counsel was admitted candidly to the court. However, this mistake had been taken advantage of by the defendant in the original case. [8] This amounted to a unilateral mistake, rather than mutual mistake. [19]

The defendant took an advantage of a patent mistake of law by the deceased's solicitor and counsel, but this mistake was not instigated by the defendant,... ...if I had thought that the conduct of the defendant was unconscionable, I should have declined relief in any event, in the exercise of my discretion, because of the conduct of the deceased by her legal representatives.

The Hon. Mr Justice Langstaff,BAILII transcript [20]

Langstaff J. approved [lower-alpha 2] the conclusion of Nelson J. in Thames Trains Limited and Railtrack PLC v Michael Adams [2006] EWHC 3291 that there is no general duty upon one party to litigation, or potential litigation, to point out the mistakes of another party or its legal advisers, and for the following reasons: [12]

However, this mistake was not contrived by Dr Arnold or her legal team, and the court accepted that this was not a situation where the conduct of Dr Arnold or her legal team was considered to be unconscionable. [12] However, the facts of a case would be taken into account and any mistake instigated by the conduct of the defendant would have been given different consideration. [22]

Limitation

Any action to recover damages in respect of the injury due to Dr Arnold's negligence was precluded from the point Wendy Thompson settled her claim. Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1980 was cited as providing for: [12]

"(1) An action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 shall not be brought if the death occurred when the person injured could no longer maintain an action and recover damages in respect of the injury (whether because of a time limit in this Act or in any other Act, or for any other reason)
Where any such action by the injured person would have been barred by the time limit in Section 11 of this Act, no account shall be taken of the possibility of that time limit being over ridden under Section 33 of this Act."

The court found that both the Fatal Accidents Act and Section 12 of the Limitation Act provided that:

"a right of children and spouses to claim an award for loss of their dependency upon the deceased wife and mother arises where there has been no determination (by settlement or judgment) of the claim of the injured victim prior to her death." [23]

Notes

  1. ↑ Also referred to as "income dependency" [3]
  2. ↑ The duty that falls on solicitors of the opposing side, as set out in Thames Trains Ltd v Adams, was reinforced by Langstaff J. in Thompson v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875 (QB) [21]

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

In English civil litigation, costs are the lawyers' fees and disbursements of the parties.

Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts.

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Misrepresentation</span> Untrue statement in contract negotiations

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal injury</span>

Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to his or her body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.

Loss of chance in English law refers to a particular problem of causation, which arises in tort and contract. The law is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party, where the defendant's breach of contract or of the duty of care for the purposes of negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit and/or avoid a loss. For these purposes, the remedy of damages is normally intended to compensate for the claimant's loss of expectation. The general rule is that while a loss of chance is compensable when the chance was something promised on a contract it is not generally so in the law of tort, where most cases thus far have been concerned with medical negligence in the public health system.

In the English law of negligence, the acts of the claimant may give the defendant a defence to liability, whether in whole or part, if those acts unreasonably add to the loss.

In English law, a nervous shock is a psychiatric / mental illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. Often it is a psychiatric disorder triggered by witnessing an accident, for example an injury caused to one's parents or spouse. Although the term "nervous shock" has been described as "inaccurate" and "misleading", it continues to be applied as a useful abbreviation for a complex concept. The possibility of recovering damages for nervous shock, particularly caused by negligence, is strongly limited in English law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fatal Accidents Act 1846</span> Law in England and Wales for recovery of damages for death of a relative

The Fatal Accidents Act 1846, commonly known as Lord Campbell's Act, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that, for the first time in England and Wales, allowed relatives of people killed by the wrongdoing of others to recover damages.

<i>Van Wees v Karkour</i> Personal injury case with significance for the assessment of damages

Van Wees v Karkour (1) and Walsh (2) [2007] EWHC 165 (QB) was an English law case of importance because of its implications in the assessment of damages. As such, it has relevance in particular to personal injury solicitors and employment consultants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fatal Accidents Act 1976</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that allows relatives of people killed by the wrongdoing of others to recover damages.

The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.

Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his/her use or enjoyment of that land", and public nuisance, where the defendant's actions "materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects"; public nuisance is also a crime. Both torts have been present from the time of Henry III, being affected by a variety of philosophical shifts through the years which saw them become first looser and then far more stringent and less protecting of an individual's rights. Each tort requires the claimant to prove that the defendant's actions caused interference, which was unreasonable, and in some situations the intention of the defendant may also be taken into account. A significant difference is that private nuisance does not allow a claimant to claim for any personal injury suffered, while public nuisance does.

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

<i>Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd</i>

Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 is an English land law and English contract law case, concerning the measure and availability of damages for breach of negative covenant in circumstances where the court has confirmed a covenant is legally enforceable and refused as it may find, as unconscionable, to issue an order for specific performance or an injunction.

<i>Read v Great Eastern Railway</i> English tort authority on damages fully satisfied

Read v Great Eastern Railway (1868) LR 3 QB 555 was an English tort law case which created a strong authority enshrining the principle that if a deceased person has settled a damages claim discharging all the claims and causes of action against the defendant in full satisfaction within their lifetime, no further action can be brought by their representatives if the injured person subsequently dies from the same injuries. It was held that a claim for loss of dependency under section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, also known as "Lord Campbell's Act", could not be brought if a person died from the effects of an injury for which they had settled a claim during their lifetime, as they would not be capable of any fresh cause of action.

References

  1. 1 2 Tuff, Matthew (10 June 2022). "The law on fatal accident claims". Moore Barlow LLP. Retrieved 8 May 2023. Thompson and others v Arnold (2007) EWHC 1875 (QB)... ...confirmed that where a claimant obtained a settlement or judgment for their personal injury claim and then died as a result of that same injury or illness, their dependants were precluded from bringing a fatal accident claim. To attempt to do so would be an abuse of process.
  2. 1 2 "Personal Injury Update" . New Law Journal (7292). 11 October 2007. ...Langstaff J then went on to note that the alternative construction of FAA 1976 contended for by counsel for the dependants would have the effect that death would be the circumstance which brought the right of action under FAA 1976 into play which he stated would give rise to the prospect of double recovery...
  3. 1 2 3 Jha, Swati; Power, Eloise (12 May 2022). Lessons from Medicolegal Cases in Obstetrics and Gynaecology: Improving Clinical Practice. Cambridge University Press. p. 335. ISBN   978-1-108-99511-5. Langstaff J observed that a claim for income dependency brought on behalf of the dependants after death under the Fatal Accident Act is "always likely to be higher than a claim for loss of income during the "lost years".
  4. ↑ McBride, Nicholas J.; Bagshaw, Roderick (17 May 2018). Tort Law. United Kingdom: Pearson UK. p. 812. ISBN   978-1-292-20785-8. Read v The Great Eastern Railway Company (1868) LR 3 QB 555
  5. ↑ "Thompson & Ors v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875 (QB)". www.casecheck.co.uk. 6 August 2007. Retrieved 21 April 2023. Death as a Consequence of Injuries for which Damages already awarded.
  6. 1 2 Howarth, David; Matthews, Martin; Morgan, Jonathan; O'Sullivan, Janet; Tofaris, Stelios (7 January 2016). Hepple and Matthews' Tort Law: Cases and Materials. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 572. ISBN   978-1-5099-0040-4. However, where the deceased had pursued a claim for a wrongful act that resulted in his death to judgment or settled a claim before his death, then his dependants had no cause of action under the 1976 Act, as the dependants would already have received compensation for the wrongful act resulting in the deceased's death: see Thompson v Arnold [2007] EHHC 1875 (QB), [2008] PIQR P1.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Hon. Mr Justice Langstaff (6 August 2007), Thompson & Ors v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875 (QB) , retrieved 21 April 2023
  8. 1 2 3 4 "No duty on doctor's solicitor to inform opponent of mistake" . Irish Medical Times . 23 November 2007. Retrieved 29 April 2023. ...Mrs Thompson first obtained judgment in default of a defence being lodged and then proceeded to settle her action. A consent order to that effect was made on 20 January 2000. This order provided, inter alia, as follows: "The claimant accepts the sum of £120,000 in full and final satisfaction of her claim."
  9. ↑ Thompson & Ors v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875(QB) at para. 5(6 August 2007)
  10. ↑ "Thompson & Ors v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875 (QB) (06 August 2007)". www.casecheck.co.uk. Retrieved 30 April 2023.
  11. 1 2 Beeby, Gabriel. "An Overview of Claims for and Following Death" (PDF). guildhallchambers.co.uk. Retrieved 24 April 2023.
  12. 1 2 3 4 "Thompson & Ors v Arnold, [2007] EWHC 1875 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division), Judgment". www.casemine.com. 6 August 2007. Retrieved 29 April 2023.
  13. ↑ DLS (13 July 2022). "Thompson and others v Arnold: QBD 6 Aug 2007". swarb.co.uk. Retrieved 30 April 2023. The court considered the interaction of the 1934 and 1976 Acts.
  14. 1 2 Thompson & Ors v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875(QB) at para. 19(6 August 2007)
  15. ↑ Ruth Morrissey and Paul Morrissey v Health Service Executive, Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and Medlab Pathology Limited, 2019120, 121, 122 , 121-122(The Supreme Court19 March 2020)("Thompson v. Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875 (QB), Langstaff J. helpfully sets out the differences between a personal injuries claim taken by an individual who has suffered a shortened life expectancy as a result of negligence and a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 taken by the dependants of the deceased, at paras. 20-21 (...)").
  16. ↑ Lunney, Mark; Nolan, Donal; Oliphant, Ken (2017). Tort Law: Text and Materials. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-874552-5. Note, however, that one concern with using the lost years claim as a means of providing for dependants after the claimant's death - that the claimant might spend the lost years award during his own shortened life so that there is nothing left for dependants at his death - can be avoided by use of a periodical payment order (...)
  17. ↑ Thompson & Ors v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875(QB) at para. 21(6 August 2007)
  18. 1 2 Whiteley, Miranda (30 September 2007). "Mistake". Mills & Reeve LLP. Retrieved 1 May 2023– via Lexology. In Thompson, the claimant's solicitor had submitted a deliberately over-inflated claim.
  19. ↑ "Thompson v Arnold". vlex.co.uk. 6 August 2007. 14. Retrieved 1 May 2023. The mistake was thus unilateral, not mutual. He pointed out that in some circumstances one party to a contract who realised that the other party had made a mistake might not be able to take advantage of it. The court would prevent it.
  20. ↑ Thompson & Ors v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875(QB) at para. 111(6 August 2007)
  21. ↑ "Review of the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules" (PDF). 1 February 2018. p. 134. The duties of English solicitors regarding obligations to opponents were articulated in Thames Trains Ltd v Adams [2006] EWHC 3291 (QB), approved in Thompson v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875 (QB).
  22. ↑ "Is there an obligation to point out your opponent's mistake?". Thomson Reuters Practical Law. 20 August 2007. Retrieved 1 May 2023. Each situation does, however, turn on its own facts. A mistake induced by conduct of the defendant would be viewed differently.
  23. ↑ Thompson & Ors v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875(QB) at para. 90(6 August 2007)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.