Hassam & Anor v Rabot & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

These conjoined appeals arise from two “test cases” heard together – Plaintiff 1 v Defendant 1 and Plaintiff 2 v Defendant 2. Both plaintiffs were occupants of motor vehicles negligently struck from behind in mid-2021. Each sustained whiplash injuries (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018 and the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021) together with additional, non-whiplash soft-tissue injuries.

Under the post-reform small-claims process, both actions were commenced on the Official Injury Claim online portal. Quantum could not be agreed, so the matters proceeded to paper hearings before District Judge Hennessy. Applying a “tariff + common-law assessment with a Sadler deduction” (the “third approach”), the judge awarded:

• £3,100 in Plaintiff 1 (tariff £1,390; non-tariff £2,500; deduction £790).
• £2,800 in Plaintiff 2 (tariff £840; non-tariff £3,000; deduction £1,040).

Defendants appealed, contending that only tariff damages should be awarded unless the claimant proved separate, non-overlapping loss (the “first approach”). Plaintiffs cross-appealed, preferring simple addition of tariff and common-law sums with no deduction (the “second approach”). The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the appeals and endorsed the third approach; the Master of the Rolls dissented. The present judgment resolves the conflict.

Legal Issues Presented

1. How should damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) be assessed where a claimant suffers both (a) whiplash injuries subject to the statutory tariff and (b) additional, non-whiplash injuries arising from the same accident?
2. Does section 3 of the Civil Liability Act 2018 limit or otherwise alter common-law damages for non-whiplash injuries when they coexist with a whiplash injury?
3. Which of three competing methodologies—the “first”, “second”, or “third” approach—correctly implements the statutory scheme while respecting common-law principles against double recovery?

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants’ Arguments (Appellants)

• The statute makes the tariff amount the exclusive recovery for any PSLA that overlaps with a whiplash injury. Common-law damages for non-whiplash injuries are recoverable only to the extent they represent distinct, additional PSLA.
• Claimants should bear the burden of demonstrating non-overlapping loss; otherwise the legislative objective of reducing compensation for minor road-traffic injuries is undermined.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments (Respondents)

• Primary case (second approach): Tariff damages for whiplash are not full compensation; therefore they should simply be added to full common-law damages for other injuries without any deduction for overlap.
• Secondary case (third approach): If a deduction is required, the court should first add the tariff and common-law sums, then “stand back” and make a Sadler adjustment, but only from the non-tariff element and never reducing the overall award below the value of the non-whiplash injuries alone (“the caveat”).

Interveners’ Arguments

• The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and Motor Accident Solicitors Society supported the plaintiffs’ primary position, calling any deduction unnecessary and inconsistent with the statutory aim of proportionate, not full, compensation for whiplash.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court approached the issue as one of statutory construction. Key analytical steps were:

1. Textual analysis. Section 3(2) fixes the tariff only “in respect of the whiplash injury”. It says nothing about non-whiplash injuries. Section 3(8) expressly preserves the court’s power to award a sum “that reflects the combined effect” of all injuries, subject to the tariff limits.
2. Common-law baseline. The Sadler methodology is the entrenched common-law approach for multiple injuries. Applying the presumption that Parliament does not lightly disturb the common law, the Court read section 3 as requiring only modification—not displacement—of Sadler.
3. Purpose of the legislation. The 2018 Act aimed to curb exaggerated whiplash claims and lower premiums, not to reduce compensation for unrelated injuries. Extending the tariff to non-whiplash PSLA would overshoot that purpose.
4. Practical coherence. The first approach would paradoxically encourage claimants to omit whiplash claims, produce potentially lower awards than for non-whiplash injuries alone, and demand medically unrealistic precision. The second approach would invite double recovery and dilute the tariff’s intended savings.
5. Adoption of the third approach. The Court therefore endorsed the three-stage exercise: (a) tariff assessment; (b) common-law assessment for non-whiplash injuries; (c) an overall Sadler deduction from the non-tariff component, ensuring the final award is not less than the stand-alone value of the non-whiplash injuries.

Holding and Implications

HELD: The defendants’ appeals and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeals are dismissed. The “third approach” — tariff + common-law damages followed by a Sadler adjustment (subject to the caveat) — is the correct method for assessing PSLA where whiplash and non-whiplash injuries coexist.

Implications: The judgment supplies binding guidance for the tens of thousands of mixed-injury claims processed through the Official Injury Claim portal. It preserves the statutory tariff for whiplash while safeguarding full, but not duplicative, compensation for additional injuries. No new cause of action is created, but the decision harmonises statutory reform with longstanding common-law principles and will govern quantum assessments in England and Wales until any further legislative change.