By : Jamie Clarke
Where it is reasonable for a personalinjury claimant to be provided with ongoing care at home, there should be a reduction to reflect the direct financial assistance the claimant will receive from the local authority towards the provision of that care pursuant to s.29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (and the underlying legislation and Ministerial guidance as also surveyed by Tomlinson J in Freeman v Lockett  EWHC 102 (QB)). This is the so-called ‘no loss’ argument, usually advanced by defendants and their insurers – but this argument was recently revisited in Crofton (a patient by his father and litigation friend John Crofton) v National Health Service Litigation Authority  EWCACiv 71. Jamie Clarke reports..
This article was originally published in Solicitors Journal (27 April 2007)
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.
Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Hardwicke. However if you have any other queries about this content please contact: