MARTINS V. CHOUDHARY [2007] EWCA Civ 1379
FACTS:-
The Claimant’s vehicle collided with that of the Defendant, and an argument ensued. The Claimant sued the Defendant and at trial, the judge found that the Defendant had intended to collide with the Claimant’s car. There were a number of incidents of racist behaviour towards the Defendant from the Claimant and the judge found that there was a course of conduct which amounted to the statutory tort of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
An injunction was granted against the Defendant following the trial, which he breached and as a result, he was imprisoned.
The harassment had caused the Claimant considerable anxiety for which he had been prescribed anti depressants. The judge considered that the present case fell at the borderline between moderate and moderately severe and she awarded £12,500 for the psychiatric injury alone. She also made an award for injury to feelings (for which an award was possible under the 1997 Act) to include aggravated damages in the sum of £10,000.
The Defendant appealed on the grounds that the award was excessive.
JUDGMENT:-
Lady Justice Smith said that in the case of Richardson v Howie [2005] PIQR 3 the Court of Appeal had recommended a single global award to compensate the Claimant for all the harm that she had suffered. In the case of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No.2) [2003] IRLR 102 (a sex discrimination case) another division of the Court of Appeal approved the making of separate awards for psychiatric harm, injury to feelings and aggravated damages.
Smith LJ said that there should be no hard and fast rules as to whether separate awards should be made. In a substantial case of psychiatric injury, it would be helpful to split the awards whereas in a lesser case, one award should suffice. There was a danger of double recovery but that had not happened in this case. It had been right to make one award for injury to feelings and aggravated damages. Aggravated damages were supposed to compensatory not punitive.
The award of £12,500 for the psychiatric injury was not excessive. As for the award of £10,000 this appeared to be on the generous side but Smith LJ was not prepared to say that it fell outside the normal range.
Lord Justice Toulson agreed. Sir Anthony Clarke MR said that in Richardson v Howie the court had said that in cases of assault and similar torts, it was appropriate to compensate for injury to feelings including the indignity, mental suffering, humiliation or distress that might be caused by such an attack as well as anger or indignation arising from the circumstances of the attack. However a court should not characterise the award of damages for injury to feelings, including any indignity, mental suffering, distress, humiliation or anger and indignation that might be caused by such an attack, as aggravated damages. A court should instead bring that element of compensatory damages for injured feelings into account as part of the general damages awarded. It would be no longer appropriate to characterise the award for the damages for injury to feelings as aggravated damages, except possibly in a wholly exceptional case.
Sir Anthony Clarke agreed with that approach, absent a case such as this one where there was identifiable psychiatric injury. It was of course important to avoid double counting.
FACTS:-
The Claimant’s vehicle collided with that of the Defendant, and an argument ensued. The Claimant sued the Defendant and at trial, the judge found that the Defendant had intended to collide with the Claimant’s car. There were a number of incidents of racist behaviour towards the Defendant from the Claimant and the judge found that there was a course of conduct which amounted to the statutory tort of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
An injunction was granted against the Defendant following the trial, which he breached and as a result, he was imprisoned.
The harassment had caused the Claimant considerable anxiety for which he had been prescribed anti depressants. The judge considered that the present case fell at the borderline between moderate and moderately severe and she awarded £12,500 for the psychiatric injury alone. She also made an award for injury to feelings (for which an award was possible under the 1997 Act) to include aggravated damages in the sum of £10,000.
The Defendant appealed on the grounds that the award was excessive.
JUDGMENT:-
Lady Justice Smith said that in the case of Richardson v Howie [2005] PIQR 3 the Court of Appeal had recommended a single global award to compensate the Claimant for all the harm that she had suffered. In the case of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No.2) [2003] IRLR 102 (a sex discrimination case) another division of the Court of Appeal approved the making of separate awards for psychiatric harm, injury to feelings and aggravated damages.
Smith LJ said that there should be no hard and fast rules as to whether separate awards should be made. In a substantial case of psychiatric injury, it would be helpful to split the awards whereas in a lesser case, one award should suffice. There was a danger of double recovery but that had not happened in this case. It had been right to make one award for injury to feelings and aggravated damages. Aggravated damages were supposed to compensatory not punitive.
The award of £12,500 for the psychiatric injury was not excessive. As for the award of £10,000 this appeared to be on the generous side but Smith LJ was not prepared to say that it fell outside the normal range.
Lord Justice Toulson agreed. Sir Anthony Clarke MR said that in Richardson v Howie the court had said that in cases of assault and similar torts, it was appropriate to compensate for injury to feelings including the indignity, mental suffering, humiliation or distress that might be caused by such an attack as well as anger or indignation arising from the circumstances of the attack. However a court should not characterise the award of damages for injury to feelings, including any indignity, mental suffering, distress, humiliation or anger and indignation that might be caused by such an attack, as aggravated damages. A court should instead bring that element of compensatory damages for injured feelings into account as part of the general damages awarded. It would be no longer appropriate to characterise the award for the damages for injury to feelings as aggravated damages, except possibly in a wholly exceptional case.
Sir Anthony Clarke agreed with that approach, absent a case such as this one where there was identifiable psychiatric injury. It was of course important to avoid double counting.