Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:36:58 +0100

From: Paula Giliker

Subject: Collateral source rule in the CA

Yes - the decision may be downloaded from Lawtel. I agree with Andrew's comments that the decision is sound and has to be correct in terms of policy, otherwise no sensible employer would pay anything prior to trial. It is nice to see common sense prevail in this rather complicated area of law. McCamley is given very short shrift and the case provides a useful run through the insurance/charity (or must we now say "benevolence"?) exceptions to deductibility. Dyson LJ's judgment is a forceful one - the payment by the defendant to the victim is deducted UNLESS the defendant chooses to "spell out explicitly that the payment is a gift made on the basis that it should not be deducted from any damages that may be awarded to the employee if litigation ensues" - unlikely to be a popular option!

Paula Giliker

DR PAULA GILIKER
Senior Lecturer in Law, Queen Mary, University of London
Associate Student Course Director and Erasmus co-ordinator.

Telephone: 020 7882 3290
Fax: 020 8981 8733

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Tettenborn
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:14 PM
Subject: ODG: collateral source rule in the CA

The CA in England has, in a thoroughly sound decision, chopped back the collateral source rule. Employee is injured & off work, eventually having to be fired for ill-health. Disablement insurance arranged by the employer pays out a handsome sum (£122,000 odd). CA deducts it from the claim, finally setting to rest the awkward decision in McCamley v Cammell Laird [1990] 1 WLR 963. It's not benevolence: nor, since the employer provides the premiums, does it come within the insurance disregard.

See Gaca v Pirelli [2004] EWCA Civ 373 (on the Court Service website, maybe elsewhere too).

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>