The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA) provides compensation to dependants of individuals who die as a result of another’s negligence. Claims under the act have included compensation for domestic services lost due to a fatal accident. However, the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case has significantly expanded and clarified the scope of dependency, particularly where services indirectly benefit the Claimant.
Background
The individual died from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure during his employment with a company. His widow claimed for the loss of services her husband provided, which enabled her to continue working as a paediatric diabetes nurse. These services included childcare and domestic support, particularly important because the couple fostered children.
The trial Court awarded £928,827.22, with £666,181 attributed to loss of services. The employer appealed, arguing that the award was excessive and that fostering-related services should not count toward dependency.
What changed?
While domestic services were always recoverable, the case introduced three key shifts:
- Broader interpretation of dependency
- The Court confirmed that dependency is about the Claimant’s loss, not just financial contributions or services provided directly to them.
- Services directed at third parties (e.g., foster children) can still create a recoverable dependency if they indirectly benefit the claimant, such as enabling them to work.
- This interpretation prevents defendants from excluding claims simply because services were not provided exclusively to the Claimant.
- Commercial valuation of services
- Previous practice often applied gratuitous care rates unless professional care was in place.
- The Court of Appeal endorsed commercial rates for valuing lost services, even where no professional package existed at trial.
- This approach can significantly increase awards and ensure realistic compensation for the cost of replacing services.
- Flexibility for post-trial changes
- The Court allowed fresh evidence on appeal when foster children left the claimant’s care, showing that dependency assessments must reflect real-life developments.
- Practitioners should monitor and disclose changes in circumstances throughout litigation.
Court’s reasoning
The Court of Appeal emphasised a realistic and fair approach to dependency. It cited earlier cases such as Malyon v Plummer and this case, confirming that Courts should reflect actual loss rather than hypothetical scenarios. The decision also applied the principles from this case to admit new evidence on appeal.
Practical implications
- Broader scope for claims: Services that enable the claimant to work or maintain family life, including non-financial contributions—such as childcare, household management, and emotional support – should be part of the claim.
- Evidence is crucial: Clear evidence, set out in witness statements and expert reports, detailing the deceased’s role in family life and the impact of the loss of this on the claimant’s ability to work services strengthens claims. Include clear evidence that the post-death changes should be monitored and disclosed.
- Use of commercial rates: Avoid arbitrary discounts – calculate the real cost of replacing services.
- Advise on flexibility: Consider future changes and be prepared for Courts to revisit awards if circumstances change. Clients should be informed about how these may affect their claim.
How can we help?
Carolle White is a Legal Director and Chartered Legal Executive in our expert Medical Negligence team, which is ranked in Tier One by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, and Commended in The Times Best Law Firms 2025. Carolle specialises in high-value and complex medical negligence cases and inquests.
If you require any advice in relation to the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Carolle or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us