Latest Keoghs Insight

JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundations Trust [2017] EWHC 1245 (QB)

Client Alerts||30/10/2017

Fourteenth Edition of the Judicial College’s Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases

Client Alerts||15/09/2017

Personal Injury Discount Rate

Client Alerts||08/09/2017

Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 to come into force in October 2017

Client Alerts||23/08/2017

Costs budget exaggeration is misconduct

Client Alerts||17/08/2017

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

Lord Justice Jackson's review into Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Client Alerts||01/08/2017

Sentencing guidelines: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea – update

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Minibus claims worth over £100,000 stopped dead in their tracks as Keoghs and Mulsanne Insurance prove fundamental dishonesty

News And Events||20/11/2017

Keoghs IT team celebrate double award win

News And Events||17/11/2017

Keoghs unveils first true AI insurance lawyer

News And Events||07/11/2017

Expansion continues for Keoghs with launch of Marine, Ports and Offshore team

News And Events||03/11/2017

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

News And Events||20/10/2017

Keoghs IT team recognised in prestigious awards

News And Events||19/10/2017

Disputed causation leaves claimants paying the price

News And Events||17/10/2017

Keoghs announce 20 promotions and four new appointments

News And Events||31/08/2017

The Meaning of “Accidental Damage”


Is an approved budget the starting point for a payment on account of costs?


The Discount Rate - Time to Draw the Line?


Out of your Control: The expanding limits of vicarious liability - Natasha Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council


Keoghs Launches Online Ogden Multiplier Calculator


A new way of life? Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited)


Driver disqualification and the case for exceptional hardship


Health and Safety Executive FFI invoices – new panel, same challenges


Credit Hire Aware 12


Costs Aware Issue 3


Property Aware 5


Credit Hire Aware 11


Fraud Aware 5


Costs Aware 2


Disease Aware 8


Credit Hire Aware 10


Keoghs Insight

We keep you up-to-date on emerging market issues and their impact on the insurance sector, through a variety of publications, events and our leading market initiatives.


Rachel Coombs

Rachel Coombs


T: 0238 190 7022

JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundations Trust [2017] EWHC 1245 (QB)

Client Alerts||30/10/2017

Keoghs has previously reported on the case of JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (click here, login required). This case discussed Roberts v Johnstone in the context of a negative discount rate and prompted an appeal by the claimant on that point. The claimant’s counsel now report that the parties have agreed a settlement on the accommodation issue for £800,000 - this being the cost of a potentially suitable property for the claimant less the cost of his likely pre-accident property.

The effect of the settlement is that Roberts v Johnstone remains and judges are bound to apply that approach, irrespective of the effect of a negative discount rate.  

Whilst the claimant’s team are proclaiming this as a win, Lord Justice Jackson made it clear before approving the settlement that “There can be no dispute that this settlement is favourable to JR.”  

The beauty of a settlement is that the parties can agree whatever they like.  There is normally a quid pro quo and where a defendant may be more generous on one head of loss, they may do so in return for a bigger concession from the claimant on another.  

Accommodation is a prime head of loss to achieve this, particularly in cases where the claimant will have a significantly reduced life expectancy.  Each case turns on its own facts and the settlement in JR is no precedent for defendants agreeing to compensate accommodation claims at this level.  

We are still in a state of flux, adjusting to the effects of a negative discount rate, but in the coming months the rate will revert to a positive one and will go some way to restoring the balance.

As part of the settlement the defendant also agreed to withdraw their appeal on the issue of lost years.  

This leaves defendants with the uncertain position where a lost years claim may be successful in cases where the claimant was a child at the time of the accident, but an adult at time of settlement. As previously advised, defendants will need to highlight how speculative this head of loss is, and produce evidence to increase the reductions for ‘but for’ living expenses.  

In conclusion, it remains to be seen whether “a proper solution to the accommodation conundrum” as per William Davis J, can be found. In the meantime, Roberts v Johnstone reigns.