AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
(From Post Magazine)
This was a decision by Mr Justice Davis on a preliminary issue as to whether a claimant is entitled to recover the cost of investment advice incurred in the management of his damages.
The judge decided such a claim was inadmissible. He was inclined to accept that before Wells v Wells (1999) a claim of this nature would have been admissible, but the situation had been changed by the decision in Wells when the House of Lords set the discount rate on the assumption the claimant would invest damages in index-linked gilt-edged stock. To allow the claimant higher damages on this basis, and to allow them to recover the cost of investment advice on a mixed portfolio, would be double-recovery.
Despite submissions to the contrary, the ...