UK Legal Latest Key cases and updates from our Corporate Claims Team

Liability

Damages for future care should be based on a claimant's reasonable needs, reinforcing the duty of expert witnesses to provide independent evidence, and clarifying the approach to "lost years" claims 

• Future care claims are assessed according to a claimant's reasonable needs, rather than what may be considered in their best interests, which may limit recovery where a less expensive care option is adequate.
• Independent and balanced expert evidence remains important in personal injury litigation, with courts willing to reject expert opinions that fail to comply with CPR 35 duties.
• Injured children may recover earnings lost due to a reduced life expectancy, with awards assessed using objective earnings data rather than family circumstances.

The case concerned the assessment of damages after the NHS Trust had already admitted liability, meaning the only issue for the court was the amount of compensation to be awarded. In considering future care needs, the court focused on whether the claimant's proposed care package was reasonably necessary rather than whether it was in his best interests. The claimant failed to establish that 24-hour care at home was reasonable given his complex medical needs, and damages were therefore assessed on the basis of residential care. The court also rejected the evidence of the claimant's care expert, finding that her report was one-sided and did not comply with the duties owed by experts under CPR 35. In relation to the claimant's "lost years" claim, the court applied recent Supreme Court authority allowing injured children to recover earnings lost during years of life expectancy removed by their injuries. The calculation was based on national average earnings, with deductions for living expenses and retirement assumed at age 70. The court also criticised the claimant's solicitors for providing late and incomplete disclosure, which unnecessarily prolonged the trial.

JBX v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust

Reinforcement of the principles governing the assessment of damages, evidential standards, and appellate deference to trial judges' factual findings

• A council must take reasonable steps to prevent flooding, and cannot rely on budget constraints where preventative action would have cost no more than dealing with the damage afterwards.
• Appeal courts rarely overturn a trial judge's factual findings, and minor procedural errors will not render a trial unfair unless they cause real prejudice.
• A party that fails to challenge valuation evidence at trial cannot usually object to it on appeal, and the court may award damages exceeding the amount claimed in appropriate circumstances.

The case confirms that a local authority owes a measured duty to take reasonable steps to prevent flooding from causing damage to neighbouring property. In determining whether that duty has been met, the court will balance factors such as the level of risk, the cost of preventative measures and the authority's available resources. In this instance, the council could not rely on budgetary constraints as a defence because clearing drains before a flood would not have cost any more than dealing with the consequences afterwards. The fact that some of the water originated from adjacent land rather than the highway itself did not remove the council's responsibility. The judgment also reaffirmed that appellate courts are generally reluctant to interfere with a trial judge's findings of fact and will do so only in exceptional circumstances. Minor procedural irregularities, including an unsigned schedule of loss, a joint witness statement and a judicial site visit conducted alone, were not considered to have made the proceedings unfair. Finally, the court upheld the damages award, noting that the council had failed to challenge the claimants' valuation evidence before trial and therefore could not raise the issue on appeal. Although the judge awarded slightly more than the amount claimed, the award was permitted in principle.

Colin Eaton & Anor v Cheshire East Council

Requests for reasonable adjustments must be properly evidenced, and judicial review of the County Court is an exceptional remedy

• Applications for intermediaries or interpreters should be supported by a draft order, witness statement and medical evidence.
• A high threshold applies to judicial review of County Court decisions, particularly where an alternative remedy exists.
• Litigants in person must comply with service obligations under CPR 54.7.

The High Court refused Mr Graft permission to pursue a judicial review of a county court order, reaffirming that judicial review will only be available in very limited circumstances where a county court has acted outside its powers or followed a procedure so unfair that it deprived a party of a fair hearing. The Court found that Mr Graft had not met this threshold, particularly as the order in question had merely postponed, rather than refused, his request for an interpreter and intermediary, leaving him free to raise the issue again at a later stage.

The judgment also highlights that parties seeking adjustments to court proceedings must clearly explain why they are required and provide supporting evidence, as a medical diagnosis alone will not automatically justify the appointment of an interpreter or intermediary. The Court noted that more proportionate measures, such as additional breaks or extra time, may often be sufficient. The judge further refused permission to challenge a later order that had granted the postponement Mr Graft had requested. Importantly, the judgment did not address the merits of the underlying clinical negligence claim, which remains ongoing in the county court.

Sergio Graft, R (on the application of) v Willesden County Court

Updates

Publication of judgments in English and Welsh

A new Protocol, effective from 1 October 2026, introduces a pilot scheme in the Administrative Court in Wales to test the publication of reserved judgments in both Welsh and English. The scheme aims to support the equal status of the Welsh language by enabling judgments to be translated and published simultaneously in both languages.

Protocol for publishing judgments in Welsh and English - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary