header-logo header-logo

Damaged

24 July 2009 / Andrew Ritchie KC
Issue: 7379 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Who should pay for additional educational needs, asks Andrew Ritchie QC

Children and adolescents who have suffered brain injury as a result of a tort will have additional needs for educational assistance. The state provides schools and (questionably) adequate education for the general population. It also provides additional help for those with special needs, but often does not cater adequately for them. So can the claimant recover damages for his additional educational needs?

The main principle 

Damages are recoverable in full for the additional cost and expense involved in providing for an injured child’s special needs where those needs were caused by the defendant’s tort. Other examples of heads of loss where the defendant is required to fund the costs of the injured child’s special needs include: speech therapy; occupational therapy; physiotherapy; specially adapted household aids and equipment; adapted IT aids and equipment; specially adapted transport; nursing care; and housing.

This statement of the full compensation principle springs from a long established tort rule summarised 129 years ago by Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll