Chelfat v Chaudhry's Restaurant Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was a customer of the Respondent's restaurant on 2 September 2012. On that day, the Appellant observed various unhygienic practices by the Respondent's staff, including improper food storage and unsanitary behavior. After consuming food and drink at the restaurant, the Appellant suffered severe abdominal pain, disrupted sleep, gastrointestinal symptoms, and exacerbation of pre-existing mental health conditions including depression and anxiety. Medical evidence confirmed infection with Helicobacter Pylori and a diagnosis of post-infective dyspeptic syndrome. The Appellant filed a personal injury claim against the Respondent on 31 August 2015.

The Respondent filed a Defence denying the claim and indicated the business had been sold and the company was being wound up. Procedurally, the Respondent took no further part, and its Defence was struck out. Judgment was entered in the Appellant's favor with damages to be assessed. The claim was struck out at one point due to failure to file medical evidence, but that order was later set aside, and the judgment reinstated. The damages assessment hearing took place on 16 January 2019 before HHJ Roberts, resulting in an order for damages and costs, which the Appellant now appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in his assessment of the general damages awarded to the Appellant for personal injury.
2. Whether the judge erred in his summary assessment of the Appellant’s costs, including the application of the costs cap under CPR 46.5(2).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge failed to take into account the full facts of the Appellant's case in assessing general damages, resulting in a wholly erroneous estimate.
• The judge should have assessed damages under a higher bracket in the Judicial College Guidelines (para (b)(ii) rather than para (b)(iii)), reflecting the severity and duration of injuries.
• The judge failed to consider or mention relevant case law submitted by the Appellant, relying solely on the Guidelines, which was insufficient.
• The judge erred in awarding less than full costs, giving no reasons for discounting the costs claimed by the litigant in person, and incorrectly applying the two-thirds cap based on claimed costs rather than hypothetical legal representative costs.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the trial judge’s advantage in hearing oral evidence and making factual findings. It noted that the Respondent did not challenge the Appellant’s evidence. The judge’s assessment was based on the Judicial College Guidelines, placing the Appellant’s injuries in para (b)(iii) of Chapter 6G, which pertains to food poisoning with symptoms lasting a few weeks and recovery within one to two years.

However, the appellate court found the judge erred in categorising the injuries under para (b)(iii) rather than para (b)(ii), which covers more serious but short-lived food poisoning with symptoms lasting two to four weeks and some longer-term effects. The Appellant’s unchallenged evidence showed symptoms persisting over many months and exacerbation of mental health conditions, justifying placement in the higher bracket.

The court rejected the Appellant’s submission that the judge was obliged to consider specific case law, finding reliance on the Guidelines alone was sufficient. It also found no justification for awarding less than full costs and identified a likely error in the judge’s application of the two-thirds costs cap under CPR 46.5(2), which should be applied to hypothetical legal representative costs, not the litigant in person’s claimed costs.

The court exercised its powers under CPR 52.20 to reassess damages itself rather than remit the matter, calculating general damages at £10,000 plus interest, and past financial losses at £100 plus interest, totaling £10,958.50. It also awarded the Appellant costs totaling £4,440, including the medical report, and reserved assessment of appeal costs.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed and the Order is varied.

The court set aside the previous damages assessment and substituted its own assessment, increasing the general damages awarded to the Appellant and awarding full costs, including those incurred by the Appellant as a litigant in person. The Respondent remains liable for these sums. No new precedent was established; the decision clarifies the application of the Judicial College Guidelines and costs rules in the context of litigants in person and appellate review of damages assessments.