The Supreme Court has dismissed the National Maternity Hospital’s appeal against a €735,000 High Court award for the future accommodation needs of Charlotte Barry, a child with severe cerebral palsy following a birth injury.
In a judgment dated 13 July 2016, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the High Court’s calculation was “perhaps unorthodox”, but the outcome achieved proper compensation without injustice. The Supreme Court affirmed the award. It said the judgment did not establish a new general approach to calculating accommodation damages.
The appeal concerned the cost of acquiring and adapting a home suited to Charlotte’s needs. The parties had agreed that buying a new property would cost €875,000 and necessary adaptations €283,000. The adaptations were expected to increase the property’s value by €135,000. The High Court awarded €735,000 under the accommodation heading.
At trial, the hospital argued for a lower award, contending that the calculation should account for the value of the family’s existing home and the lasting value added by adaptations. Charlotte’s case was that deducting the family home’s value would leave her inadequately compensated and could force her parents to use their own resources or other damages to meet the shortfall.
The High Court judge used an actuarial calculation and credited the hospital with €45,833, described as one-twelfth of the existing home’s €550,000 value. He also treated €148,000 of the adaptation cost as wasted expenditure and the remaining €135,000 as an enduring asset. Those calculations produced an award of about €735,178.
By the appeal hearing, the dispute had narrowed. The hospital accepted that an award of about €692,000 could be just, depending on how the approach in Roberts v Johnstone was applied. The Supreme Court said the difference between that figure and the High Court award was relatively small. It concluded that the High Court’s method had not caused an injustice warranting appellate intervention.
The Court stressed that there was no single assessment method suitable for every case of this kind. The measure was whether the result fairly compensated the financial loss. It also made clear that its decision concerned this case alone and did not create a general rule. There was no cross-appeal, and the child’s side had accepted the High Court award.