Past expenses and losses

Common recoverable losses

A claimant is entitled to recover all expenses and losses reasonably incurred as a result of their injuries plus interest. Common losses include various heads under general damages such as:

•
pain and suffering or loss of amenity
•
loss of congenial employment
•
Smith v Manchester awards

Common special damages (past pecuniary loss) include:

•
loss of earnings
•
treatment costs
•
care and assistance
•
accommodation or adaptation costs

The claimant may also be able to claim the cost of travel, damaged clothing, spoilt holidays, divorce, property damage (including motor vehicle damage) and postage, telephone calls etc.

For more detailed definitions of general and special damages, see Practice Note: Common recoverable losses in personal injury cases—What are general damages and special damages?—terminology explained.

For further guidance and a quick guide to calculating past and future recoverable losses, see Practice Notes: Common recoverable losses in personal injury cases and Interest on general damages, special damages and judgment debt.

Loss of earnings

A claimant is entitled, subject to evidence in support, to recover their net loss of earnings.

The

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

ACSO comments on Compensation Recovery Unit Q4 data

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has released an analysis of the latest personal injury data obtained from the Government under the Freedom of Information Act. The report reveals a continued downward trend in motor injury claims, with 2024 marking the lowest year on record at 328,637 claims, down from 352,230 in 2023. This represents a more than 50% reduction since 2018. Conversely, clinical negligence claims saw an increase of over 10% between 2023 and 2024, while public liability claims rose by 15%. Employer liability claims remained stable. ACSO's executive director, Matthew Maxwell Scott, expressed concern over the difficulty injured parties face in seeking redress and called for the government's Motor Insurance Taskforce to investigate the lack of promised savings for consumers following the whiplash reforms.

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—23 January 2025

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes a Court of Appeal decision that determined the police do not generally owe a duty to protect individuals from harm by third parties and a High Court decision where the parties argued that a breakdown of expert and MRO fees were required to assess reasonableness. We also bring you another case on solicitor-own client arguments relating to the deduction of success fees. In addition, we have our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

Revisiting a failure to provide accurate and timely costs information (Underhill v Thackray Williams Solicitors)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision highlights the risks to solicitors of not providing accurate costs information at the outset of a retainer along with regular updates to enable a client to make informed decisions about the costs to be incurred. In this case, the judge disallowed undisclosed partner supervisory time as the client had no notice of these charges and deprived the firm of the usual indemnity approach carrying out a broad-brush assessment of reasonable costs. The judge also exercised his discretion to disallow the firm’s costs of the assessment despite the firm coming within 20 percent of the costs sought on assessment. In essence, the judge relied on the lack of clarity in the firm’s bill as demanded and the lack of warning before costs were incurred to find that the client was justified in challenging the bill on assessment. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Court orders parties to attempt mediation (DKH Retail Ltd v City Football Group Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision considers an application by the claimants for the court to order the parties to mediate their dispute pursuant to the courts’ powers to do so in CPR 1.4(2)(e) and CPR 3.1(2)(o), following the leading Court of Appeal decision of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council in which the Court of Appeal determined that courts have the power to order parties to engage in a non-court based dispute resolution process.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News