Dispute Resolution analysis: The case concerns the recoverable damages for a collision, in 2015, between a container ship and a Suezmax tanker, outside the port of Jebel Ali, Dubai. Mr Justice Baker held that: (1) basic losses for repairs to the vessel and loss of earnings while undergoing repairs, could be recovered, but that—(2) extended losses relating to the fact that the vessel was in repairs for an unreasonably long time were unrecoverable—they were caused by the claimant and neither by the defendant’s collision nor by the claimant’s impecuniosity. The judge refused to allow the claim for extended losses. Written by Francis Hornyold-Strickland, barrister at 36 Stone.

This Checklist is designed to assist defendants and their representatives when reviewing and responding to quantum in personal injury and clinical negligence claims. Head of loss claimed Details/considerations Evidentiary considerations Further reading Pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) Check the injuries and sequelae relied on against the medical evidence and the applicable Judicial College Guidelines/case authorities.Consider overlap where multiple injuries are claimed rather than simply adding separate awards.For brain injury, distinguish subjective pain/suffering (which depends on awareness) from objective loss of amenity.Check whether recommended treatment may improve symptoms and whether a properly evidenced mitigation point arises. Medical records and medico-legal reports; prognosis; evidence of treatment undertaken/refused; claimant and lay witness evidence as to functional impact and loss of amenity; relevant JCG bracket and comparable awards. Practice Note: Pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA)Practice Note: Valuing serious brain injury claimsPractice Note: Mitigation in personal injury claimsGeorge v Stagecoach South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1029 (multiple injuries/overlap) Past loss of earnings Test

This flowchart explains the figures in the General Damages (PSLA) Today’s Value field. As well as inflation, this field takes into account the Heil v Rankin ([2000] 3 All ER 138) uplift and/or the Simmons v Castle ([2012] EWCA Civ 1288) uplift, where they

Construction analysis: The Court of Appeal upheld almost the entirety of the trial judge’s findings that an employer had not provided sufficient evidence as to certain losses arising from delayed and defective works carried out by a contractor. The case includes some observations from the Court of Appeal in relation to claiming damages for distress and inconvenience.

Initial considerations Quantifying damages in claims involving allegations of abuse and assault is, as with any personal injury claim, a very fact specific exercise in which the starting point is in keeping with the general principles of assessing damages in tort claims; that the damages to be awarded are ‘that which is necessary to put each claimant into the position he would have been in if he had not been abused’ (TVZ and others v Manchester City Football Club Ltd at para [343]). However, a number of particular challenges do arise in the assessment of damages in abuse claims. General damages need to compensate the claimant both for having suffered the acts of abuse as well as long-term psychiatric injuries. Apportioning psychiatric injury and resulting damages between the abuse and other matters that the defendant is not liable for, can be an imprecise and contentious endeavour, especially where a claimant was a child at the time of the abuse and/or, as is often the case, has pre-existing vulnerabilities

This Practice Note looks at some of the key considerations that may need to be taken into account when a party to a construction contract is formulating the quantum aspects of a claim. It looks at considerations for common claims made under the contract (for example, in relation to loss and expense), as well as those where the dispute arises from a breach of contract or negligence claim (ie a claim for damages). This Practice Note also discusses common losses that may be recoverable, such as damages relating to defects claims, future losses, wasted management time, loss of a chance and third party settlement sums. Aside from ascertaining the recoverability and value of a loss itself, other relevant quantum considerations can include whether the claim for quantum should be presented as a ‘global claim’, mitigation and betterment issues, contributory negligence and contractual restrictions or exclusions. When it comes to the question of loss in a dispute, the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove both the fact of and the amount of its loss. For

This Practice Note sets out some of the key and/or recent cases that deal with heads of losses which are commonly claimed in construction disputes, such as in defects claims, for loss of profit, overheads and preliminaries, wasted management costs, passing on settled claims and other examples. It is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of all cases (and is focussed on construction cases rather than general principles), but is a useful starting point when considering various claims. For details on some of the key considerations that may need to be taken into account when a party on a construction project is formulating the quantum aspects of a claim, see Practice Note: Quantum in construction claims. That Practice Note highlights considerations for common claims made under the contract (for example, in relation to loss and expense or suspension), as well as those where the dispute arises from a breach of contract or negligence claim (ie a claim for damages). It looks at the thresholds and tests for common heads of losses, as well as other relevant

The Latin phrase quantum meruit relates to claims to recover reasonable remuneration for services rendered or for goods supplied. Literally translated means 'as much as he deserves'. When calculating the sum of a quantum meruit, the court will have in mind what is fair in consideration of the works undertaken. There are no 'hard and fast' rules, although where a contract is found to be void or unenforceable the court is unlikely to allow the claiming party to rely on any pricing mechanism which it contains.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers restitutionary claims for quantum meruit (value of services) and quantum valebat (value of goods): the applicable principles, when such types of claim might arise and the basis for assessing the value of the benefit conferred in such cases. When is quantum meruit and quantum valebat relevant? Claims in quantum meruit (value of services) and quantum valebat (value of goods) arise in diverse situations ranging from where contractual terms are silent on issues of payment to where there is no contract at all (Serck v Drake & Scull). For specific guidance on the interplay between quantum meruit/valebat claims and claims for unjust enrichment in the context of contractual relationships, see Practice Note: Unjust enrichment and contracts—failure of basis claims [Archived]. General principles—quantum meruit and quantum valebat claims Claims in quantum meruit and quantum valebat are generally considered to be a category of claims in unjust enrichment (although courts sometimes

This Practice Note looks at what quantum meruit is, the most common situations in which a quantum meruit claim may arise in relation to a construction project, and how the court may value the claim and determine what constitutes a ‘reasonable sum’. See also, more generally, Practice Note: Unjust enrichment and contract claims—failure of basis and quantum meruit. What is quantum meruit? The term ‘quantum meruit’ means ‘as much as he has earned’ and a quantum meruit claim means that a party is claiming a reasonable sum—ie the amount that it deserves, taking into account the works or services that it has performed. When does a quantum meruit claim arise? A claim on the basis of quantum meruit will arise out of a situation which, for one reason or another, involves an element of uncertainty as to the amount due to the contractor. In general, a claim for quantum meruit indicates that there is no contract between the parties in respect of the specific work/services that have been performed and for which the claim is being made—even

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Claimants (be they office-holders or assignees) are entitled to seek the recovery of the full amount transferred from the insolvent entity rather than merely the limit of the shortfall in the estate. The applicability of the decision in Manolete Partners Plc v Hope is confirmed. Written by Andrew Mace, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings.

What is the problem? In an intellectual property (IP) claim, it is often difficult to predict quantum at the time the claim is issued. Why does the problem arise? The difficulty in predicting how much is likely to be recovered in an IP claim should liability be established is, not least, because the extent of the infringement may not be known to the claimant at the time of issue and may only be revealed in subsequent disclosure which is obtained or otherwise in the course of proceedings. In addition, very often claimants have the option of seeking quantum representing either their damages or an account of the defendant’s profits which is an election made at a later stage in the process after some additional disclosure (essentially the proceedings are split into liability and quantum stages). Ordinarily, the claimant will have little idea