Burgess v Sikorski [2026] EWHC 1245 (KB) is an important High Court decision concerning the assessment of dependency claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA). The judgment considers a key issue in fatal accident litigation: whether the cost of professional deputyship services is recoverable as damages.

Background

The claimant suffered fatal injuries in an RTA. Liability was admitted, subject to a 30% reduction for contributory negligence. The claim was brought on behalf of three  dependants; her husband and two adult sons. Both sons had moderate learning disabilities (with one also suffering well-controlled epilepsy) and lacked capacity to manage their property and financial affairs. They were therefore ‘protected beneficiaries’ for the purposes of CPR Part 21.

CPR 21.11(9) provides that where the amount recovered is more than £100,000, the court must direct the litigation friend to apply to the Court of Protection for the appointment of a deputy.

The judgment in this case considered two key elements.

Services dependency

The question before the Court was the extent and value of the services the deceased would have continued to provide to her family, the appropriate award for ‘services dependency’.

Although it awarded a substantial sum, the Court preferred the defendant’s care expert evidence, finding the needs-led approach of the claimant’s expert did not reflect the services the deceased herself would likely have provided.  

The judge allowed gratuitous rates for the past services dependency but applied commercial rates when valuing future services dependency. There is therefore potential to see increased dependency awards as a result.

Professional deputyship fees

Both deputyship experts agreed the need for a professional rather than a lay deputy. The Court had to decide whether to award the costs of professional deputy fees as damages. However, there was no previous authority on this point.

The judge accepted that a dependant cannot claim losses which simply arise as a result of death, only those that represent the loss of a future benefit the deceased would have provided. He also acknowledged that the professional administration of the fund awarded for the benefit of the beneficiaries is not in itself a benefit that the deceased would have conferred on them, had she lived. There would have been no fund, and she would not have been qualified to administer it.

Nevertheless, the judge preferred the claimant’s position that the deputy fees are a “necessary corollary” to an award for loss of services and are therefore recoverable. The court’s reasoning was as follows:

1. The sons had lost their mother's household contributions and the additional care she provided to meet their special needs. It was held that this loss was capable of being “estimated in money” and required "full compensation".
2. In deciding what “full compensation” means, the court must take a realistic view of what sum is needed to replace the identified services the deceased would have been providing. The judge found it reasonable to replace their mother’s services with a support worker, and that case management costs would be required. Their fees are a “necessary corollary” of ensuring that the sums awarded for engaging a support worker are spent in a way which best replaces what the deceased was doing for her sons.
3. Deputy fees, while much greater than case management costs for a support worker service, are not categorically different. The sons will be unable to apply for the sums awarded to replace their mother’s services, unless they can unlock the funds from the Court of Protection, which is unlikely unless professional deputies are appointed.
4. “Given that full compensation for the loss of services would appear to include the costs of allowing dependants to make effective use of funds intended to finance replacement services, I agree that the deputy fees are a necessary corollary and should be regarded as part and parcel of the sum required to give full compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefit that is provided for by FAA s3.”

The sons were awarded in excess of £100,000 as a result of no longer benefiting from their mother’s care and support. The claim for professional deputyship fees of £414,091 was awarded as the sons’ need for professional deputies only arose because of their mother’s death.

Comment

In acknowledging  professional deputyship fees as a recoverable head of loss, this  decision recognises that, in appropriate cases, such fees may form part of a services dependency under s.3(1) FAA if reasonable. The decision is important as it extends losses beyond the loss of services and into the costs of administering the award itself.

It is likely that these claims will feature increasingly in FAA cases. Nevertheless, the applicability of such claims will depend on the particular facts of each case.

Permission to appeal was granted given the lack of existing authority on the point, meaning the extent to which the decision will influence future claims remains uncertain.

Cheryl-Anne Laurie - Complex Injury Solicitor