Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
your account has been suspended
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
collapseSign
Policy drafting services
SMCR: EFFECT
Claims and liability in the education sector
Lloyd's and London market
Managing general agents
Policy drafting solutions tailored to your needs
View all Your needs
Public bodies and public authority claim insurance
Abuse and social care claim insurance
Insurance coverage disputes and policy interpretation
Cyber liability and data security insurance
Disease insurance law
Major incident response and management insurance
Directors, officers and corporate liability
View all Our expertise
Employers liability insurance
Employment Practices Liability Claims
Medical malpractice and negligence insurance
Motor insurance law - outsourced claims
Policy drafting and underwriter services
Product liability and indemnity insurance
Professional indemnity and lawyers' liability
Property damage and business interruption
Claims handling and outsourcing
Counter fraud
View all Complementary services
The advisory role of a broker
Browne Jacobson home Insurance home Insights Legal updates Mullins v Gray Court of Appeal 28th October
Mullins v Gray, Court of Appeal, 28 October 2004
remove content?
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
Egg Shell Skull – Pre-Existing Psychiatric Illness – To What Extent Claimant Should Recover Where An Injury Had Been Exacerbated By An Existing Condition Of Anxiety And Depression Short Of A Recognised Psychiatric Condition
The Claimant was injured in a road traffic accident – he had been hit from behind and had suffered a whiplash injury. Liability was not in issue. At the time of the accident the Claimant was suffering from anxiety and depression which exacerbated her pain and suffering.
The Judge found that the pre-existing condition had been exacerbated by the accident but did not make an award of damages at the top end of the scale on the basis that there was a lack of evidence to support a finding that she had suffered from a recognised psychiatric condition.
The medical evidence was that the Claimant had suffered an exacerbation of a psychiatric illness in the form of anxiety and depression but that he condition had fallen short of a recognised personality disorder.
The Claimant's claim was for pain and suffering caused by the whiplash injury.
The fact that the pain and suffering had been heightened by a personality disorder did not change the nature of the pain and suffering.
The Claimant had been more susceptible to pain. This however was no more than a typical egg shell skull case. The claim was not for psychiatric injury. If it had been, medical evidence would have been required to prove that injury. Whilst the Judge had been right to find that the pain and suffering had been caused by the whiplash he had made a mistake in relying on the expert's view that the Claimant had not been suffering from a recognised psychiatric disorder as a ground for reducing the award.
The award of £6,000.00 for general damages were to be increased to £20,000.00.
Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac
These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.
Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic
The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.
Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?
The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations
With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.
The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Client interest
Keep up with the latest content from Browne Jacobson:
© Copyright Browne Jacobson LLP 2021 - All rights reserved
Some of the content you are trying to view requires you to have JavaScript enabled on your browser. If you are unable to activate JavaScript and need further assistance please contact our online team on webmaster@brownejacobson.com or 0115 976 6201 who will be happy to help you.