|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
Where a child’s parent has been killed and the child is looked after by a member of the extended family who provides parental services as good as those provided by the deceased parent, the Board must, when assessing damages, disregard the replacement parental services in so far as they form a benefit resulting from the death.
Facts
An application was made on behalf of 3 young children, whose mother had been murdered by her husband, and who were looked after by their uncle and aunt. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) initially awarded the children £35,000 in respect of the loss of their mother’s services, based on a multiplier of 7 and an annual loss of £5,000. The Official Solicitor (‘the OS’), representing the children, sought an oral hearing in order to challenge the multiplier, but the Board reduced the award to £9,000. The Board members did so because they considered themselves bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Hayden v Hayden [1992] 1 WLR 986 to hold that as the general parental services provided by the uncle and aunt were at least as good as those provided by the mother, the children had suffered no loss, and that those substituted services should not be disregarded pursuant to s.4 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (as substituted by the Administration of Justice Act 1982). The value of the mother’s individual care as a mother in respect of each child was assessed at £3,000. The OS sought judicial review of the Board’s decision.
Held
(1) The Board was wrong to find that the children had suffered no loss. Insofar as the replacement services formed a benefit resulting from the death, their value should have been disregarded when assessing damages by reason of the operation of s.4 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (as substituted by the Administration of Justice Act 1982). Stanley v Saddique [1992] 1QB 1 followed.
(2) The Board should therefore have disregarded the value of the replacement services provided by the aunt and uncle and compensated the children for the full value of the loss of their mother’s services.
(3) Hayden v Hayden [1992] 1 WLR 986 was distinguished on the grounds that in that case the replacement services were provided by the child’s father and therefore could not be said to have resulted from the death, and on the grounds that he was the tortfeasor.
(4) The Board’s award was quashed.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Fatal Accidents Act 1846, section 2
Fatal Accidents Act 1976, section 4
Administration of Justice Act 1982
Cases referred to in judgment
Hayden v Hayden [1992] 1 WLR 986
Stanley v Saddique [1992] 1QB 1
Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v Karlshamms Oljebfabriker (A/B) [1949] AC 196
Auty v National Coal Board [1985] 1 WLR 784
Mr F Burton QC instructed by the Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court for the Applicants
Mr B Langstaff QC and Mr H Keith instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Repsondent
|