Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In this article, Michael Harper of Crown Office Chambers considers the assessment of damages and the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
The assessment of damages can in many cases take account of events subsequent to breach and what is known by the date of trial. This is despite what has been traditionally referred to as a general rule that damages are assessed as at the date of breach.
Hindsight, proverbially said to be 20/20, will therefore be much required in 2020. The quantification of some claims may be radically affected by the effects of COVID-19.
It remains necessary to start with the traditional recitation that “as a general rule in English law damages for tort or for breach of contract are assessed as at the date of the breach”: Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd  AC 443 at 468D. This has been repeatedly affirmed as a starting point, including most notably in The Golden Victory  UKHL 12 at  and .
Nonetheless, if one starts with this general rule, there are a remarkably high number of potential exceptions. Moreover, these exceptions are not always readily explicable nor demarcated in a way that preserves the rule itself. The effect is that it becomes more difficult to predict or justify when a Court should take into account subsequent events.
The better (and arguably now prevailing) approach is that the real question as to the date of assessment is one of identifying the correct counterfactual and in particular regarding mitigation: what ought the claimant to have done in response to the breach and when?
This approach now has the direct support of Pluczenik Diamond Co NV v W Nagel  EWCA Civ 2640, at , which reframes the two leading Supreme Court cases as favouring this view:
“Although it has often been said that damages should be assessed ‘as at’ the date of breach, following the decisions of [The Golden Victory] and [ Bunge SA v Nidera BV], it is now clear that this is not a rule of law but merely a rule of thumb which reflects the usual result in practice of applying the mitigation principle where there is an available market. Where there is an available market, it is presumed that the claimant acting reasonably will enter the market at once and obtain a replacement performance. Hence applying the mitigation principle has the result of crystallising the claimant's loss at or at least shortly after the time of breach. But where the mitigation principle does not yield this result – for example because there is no readily available market – subsequent losses (and gains) have to be brought into the calculation.”
This approach is also consistent with a sizeable body of academic commentary, which has further noted that the supposed general rule has often seemed more honoured in the breach than the observance in recent years.
Conversely, if acting reasonably the claimant has not remedied
the breach, the loss never crystallised and subsequent events may continue to
inform the assessment of loss (subject to general principles, such as
remoteness). If a defendant failed to perform a contract or negligently damaged
property but it was reasonable for the claimant not to pay for substitute
performance or repairs, then subsequent events remain material. If it would now
be reasonable for the claimant to remedy the breach, damages should reflect
whether the cost of doing so has increased or decreased.
There are a multitude of reasons why it might have been
reasonable not to remedy the breach, so that subsequent events will factor into
the assessment of damages. These include if the claimant was unaware of the
breach at all or if they were locked into the consequences of the breach.
One must of course take care in considering what the
claimant ought to have done in response to the breach and the overall position
in that counterfactual. However, there is at least a coherent framework to
explain why this enquiry matters and how it yields a date of assessment.
On any view COVID-19 and the global response to it have had
profound effects. Where appropriate, the assessment of damages for breaches
prior to this period may be radically affected by those subsequent events, just
as with breaches occurring now.
Many counterfactuals will be less profitable than would have
been previously forecast. A claimant who, due to the defendant’s breach in
contract or tort, was prevented from (say) providing client-facing services and
where this loss never crystallised has likely suffered a much smaller loss of
profit than might have been assumed. The same will likely be true of most contracts
that depend on the high-street, public events or general consumer spending.
In other cases, subsequent events may show that a claimant’s
loss is greater than would have been forecast assuming ordinary circumstances.
Perhaps it is reasonable for the claimant to now undertake emergency property repair
works but the necessary cost is increased due to appropriate safety measures for
those undertaking the works. Or perhaps the claimant was prevented from sharing
in the growth in certain sectors, such as a spike in demand for certain goods
or remote services.
In these cases, all parties will want to assess whether COVID-19
has increased or decreased the loss and how to evidence this. A starting point may
be to look at the appropriate industry trend or specific comparators, but with
adjustments if the claimant would have been particularly well or ill-placed to
deal with the new market conditions.
In relevant cases, parties would be well advised to revisit
assumptions as to the date of assessment and the quantification of settlement
Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice and no liability is accepted.
Republished with the kind permission of Crown Office Chambers. This article, in a longer format, was originally
published on the Crown Office Chambers website here.
For the biography of Michael Harper of Crown Office Chamber, see here
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Michael is a barrister practising at Crown Office Chambers, principally on professional negligence, insurance, property damage and commercial matters. Recent notable instructions include one of the Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2019.
0330 161 1234