Oldham v Sharples [1997]

FACTS:

The Claimant was on duty at hospital, guarding a remand prisoner who was receiving treatment.  The prisoner effected his escape by attacking the Claimant with a surgical needle.  The Claimants arm was wounded and injury was referred to as a ‘needlestick’ injury, caused by the needle of a drip that was set up as part of the Prisoner’s treatment at the hospital.    

The Claimant brought an action against the Chief Constable, alleging negligence of the failure to inform him of the prisoner’s violent nature and the likelihood he would attempt to escape.  The Claimant claimed damages for the minor puncture wounds he had sustained and also for the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder he claimed to have suffered due to worry he might have been exposed to AIDS or hepatitis.

During the course of the trial it became known that the Claimant had received an award of £3000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (“the CICB”) in respect of his injuries.  The judge found for the Claimant but did not accept his evidence about post traumatic stress disorder and awarded him a total of £886.76, £750 for which was for general damages.  The effect of this was that the Claimant would have to pay what he had recovered back to the CICB.  Taking this into account, the trial judge made no order for costs. 

The Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, and put forward the argument that as he had been successful on liability, costs should follow the event. 

HELD:

The case came to court and the judge had to decide four issues:

1)     Was the defendant liable to the Plaintiff for the negligence of some of his officers;

2)     If so, did any loss flow from that negligence;

3)     Was there any contributory negligence by the plaintiff;

4)     If liability was established what was the proper level of compensation?

The appeal was allowed.  The fact that the Claimant had received an award from the CICB did not disentitle him from bringing his action.  It was held by Roch LJ that it was in the public interest that he do so because the tortfeasor would then have to repay the state for what had been paid out by the CCB. 

The damages awarded to the Claimant were not minimal, and the fact that they had to be repaid to the CICB did not mean the Claimant had obtained a valueless judgement.  It was held that costs should follow the event and were awarded on Scale 1.

Henry LJ and Ward LJ both agreed with the judgement of Roch, LJ.  The appeal was allowed with costs.

No related posts.