Factual and Procedural Background
In 1998, the Respondent, a masseuse working in The City, met the Appellant as a customer. The Appellant regularly paid significant sums to the Respondent and purchased a house for her. Their relationship was described as volatile. In June 2000, during a holiday in Barbados, an altercation occurred in which the Appellant attacked the Respondent with a broken bottle, causing multiple injuries. The Respondent was treated at the Accident & Emergency Department of The Hospital in Barbados.
Following police involvement in Barbados, both parties were deported back to The State, where their relationship ended shortly after. The Appellant was subsequently convicted at Lewes Crown Court for soliciting the Respondent's murder and sentenced to six years imprisonment.
In 2001, the Respondent initiated a claim in the Hastings County Court for damages related to assault and battery from the Barbados incident, including aggravated damages and damages for wrongful interference with goods. The Appellant denied the assault, counter-claiming for possession of certain goods.
The trial took place over several days in July 2003 before HH Judge Kennedy QC at Brighton County Court. The judge awarded the Respondent £10,000 including £5,000 in aggravated damages for assault and damages for certain goods to the Appellant, dismissing all other claims. The judge provided reasons for judgment five months later, with idiosyncratic orders on costs. The Appellant sought leave to appeal on the quantum of damages and the award of aggravated damages, which was granted.
The judge made few findings regarding the injuries and gave no reasoning for the aggravated damages award. The parties agreed the judge failed to explain the aggravated damages decision adequately.
No findings were made about the extent or visibility of the scarring despite medical evidence, including hospital notes, photographs, and expert reports. The scars were permanent and fell within a bracket of less significant scarring according to the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines.
It was undisputed that the Respondent suffered injury to her feelings, including humiliation, indignity, and anger, as a result of the assault.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge erred in awarding aggravated damages without sufficient explanation or findings.
- Whether damages for injury to feelings in assault cases should be awarded as part of general damages or as aggravated damages.
- The appropriate quantum of general damages for the injuries and emotional harm suffered by the Respondent.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The award of aggravated damages was wrong in principle and should not have been made.
- Any damages for injury to feelings should be included within general damages, not as a separate aggravated damages award.
- The quantum of damages awarded was excessive.
Respondent's Arguments
- The case warranted an award of aggravated damages due to the spiteful nature of the attack with a weapon causing permanent scarring.
- The trial judge was correct to award aggravated damages in the sum he did.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| English v Emery Reimbold [2002] 1 WLR 2409 |
Requirement for reasons when awarding aggravated damages. |
Accepted that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for aggravated damages. |
| Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 |
Aggravated damages appropriate where defendant's conduct injures plaintiff's dignity or causes humiliation, distress, insult, or pain. |
Used to summarize the principles governing aggravated damages and the conduct required to justify them. |
| A.B v South West Water Service Ltd [1993] QB 533 |
Emphasis on compensatory nature of damages rather than punitive; aggravated damages must compensate for loss, not punish. |
Supported the view that damages for injured feelings should be compensatory and included in general damages. |
| W v Meah [1986] 1 All ER 935 |
Aggravated damages must be moderate and compensatory, reflecting circumstances of injury. |
Illustrated that aggravated damages compensate for the circumstances in which injury was suffered. |
| Appleton and others v Garrett [1996] P.I.Q.R P1 |
Aggravated damages may be awarded for injury to feelings including anger or indignation in cases of trespass to the person. |
Confirmed that such awards must be moderate and compensatory, not punitive. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the legal principles surrounding aggravated damages, emphasizing that such damages are compensatory rather than punitive. The court reviewed the authorities, particularly the judgment in Rookes v Barnard, which sets out that aggravated damages are appropriate where the defendant's conduct injures the plaintiff's dignity or causes humiliation and distress through exceptional or spiteful behavior.
The court noted that since A.B v South West Water, courts have emphasized that damages must primarily compensate for loss rather than punish the defendant. Aggravated damages should be moderate and reflect the circumstances of the injury, as illustrated in W v Meah and Appleton v Garrett.
Applying these principles, the court concluded that injury to feelings, including indignity, humiliation, anger, and distress, arising from an assault should be compensated as part of general damages, not separately as aggravated damages, except in wholly exceptional cases.
The court found that the trial judge's failure to provide reasons and findings for aggravated damages led to an excessive award. The facts did not approach the threshold for exceptional aggravated damages. The spiteful attack and resultant permanent scarring entitled the Respondent to compensation for injured feelings, but this should have been included in general damages.
Given the insufficient findings at trial, the court undertook its own assessment of damages based on the evidence, including medical reports and photographs, concluding that the scars were permanent but less significant. The court considered the emotional harm and injury to feelings and determined an appropriate overall award of £4,500, substituting this for the original £10,000 award.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL, set aside the trial judge’s judgment and all orders as to costs, and substituted an award of general damages in the sum of £4,500 for the Respondent's injuries and injured feelings.
The court clarified that damages for injury to feelings in assault cases should generally be included within general damages rather than awarded separately as aggravated damages, except in wholly exceptional circumstances. This decision directly affects the parties by reducing the damages awarded and overturning the trial judge’s approach, but does not establish new precedent beyond clarifying the application of aggravated damages principles.