Ed Madden, BL, appears at a latest England and Wales Excessive Courtroom case through which the Courtroom needed to decide whether or not a Pre-Motion Protocol for Low Worth Private Harm Claims utilized to a declare on behalf of a carer who suffered an damage at work
In February 2025, the Senior Courts Prices Workplace of the England and Wales Excessive Courtroom delivered its judgment in a case through which some extent of dispute served by the Defendant in November 2022 was whether or not the Pre-Motion Protocol for Low Worth Private Harm (Employers’ Legal responsibility and Public Legal responsibility) Claims (‘the Protocol’) utilized to the case into consideration, which was involved with an accident at work.
The Protocol applies to claims valued as much as £25,000 the place the accident occurred on or after July 31, 2013. Its objective is to extend the velocity of decision-making by imposing mounted response instances and glued prices on events. Its goals are to keep away from the necessity for the particular person making the declare to start proceedings, and for damages to be paid inside an affordable time.
When the matter got here on for listening to, the Courtroom was informed that the Claimant within the case, Julie Johnson, labored for the Defendant, ‘Selection Help’, an organisation that helps folks with psychological well being issues and different wants. She had been with the identical employer for 5 years, and had all through that point been working with an aged affected person ‘E’.
He had what was known as ‘a constellation of wants together with studying difficulties and was doubly incontinent’. Certainly one of Ms Johnson’s duties was to empty his catheter bag right into a bucket whereas he was sitting (normally on a rest room). It had been established from the outset that in this process, E would ‘get a bit grumpy’ and would push workers members concerned. In an effort to help workers, they have been supplied with a stool to sit down on whereas emptying the bag. They may then see the affected person at eye stage and keep away from bending; it additionally supplied them with further stability.
About two days earlier than the accident, which occurred on Christmas Day 2018, it was seen that the stool was damaged; a alternative was awaited. This meant that Ms Johnson needed to ‘crouch down’ with a purpose to empty the catheter bag. E pushed her and he or she felt her again ‘go’.
Her ache was such that her colleagues despatched her house the place she managed the ache with treatment. She recovered comparatively rapidly and returned to work inside a number of days. Nonetheless, on January 14, 2019, Ms Johnson seen her foot ‘stumping’ on the ground. The situation worsened and he or she noticed her GP by means of an emergency appointment. She was despatched for an MRI scan, which confirmed a herniated disc inflicting foot drop. She was suggested to cancel a deliberate vacation to India.
On March 5, 2019, she gave a full account of the incident to her solicitors and reported her earlier historical past. She had suffered an L4 discectomy 25 years beforehand. She had additionally been recognized with MS when she was 40, though this was not affecting her life on the time. She had a very good relationship together with her employer who had put her on ‘mild duties’ following the accident.
After some preliminary consultations with the solicitors, she requested them to delay sending a Letter of Declare on the premise that her accidents and signs have been bettering. Her employers ‘have been taking care of her’ and he or she didn’t need her place to be impacted by a declare being pursued. She meant to work till regular retirement age.
In June 2019 Ms Johnson reported to her solicitors that she had suffered a setback together with her restoration. She started to be involved about her long-term well being and skill to work. An attendance be aware taken by a solicitor on October 14, 2019, confirmed that she had fallen over ‘once more’. She had explored together with her GP the potential of an operation however since there was no assure that this could help her ongoing signs, she had determined to not proceed with it. She defined how her foot had dropped unexpectedly ‘inflicting her to fall into the highway’.
She additionally talked about different ongoing episodes of falling over because of foot drop. She now had vital considerations about her long-term well being and skill to work, and authorised submission of the Letter of Declare to her employer. When the Letter of Declare issued, the solicitors, referring to the probably worth of the declare, indicated that it ought to be handled in accordance with the Protocol.
Giving the judgment of the Courtroom, Deputy Prices Decide Sarah Erwin-Jones mentioned that on the premise of the proof obtainable to Ms Johnson’s solicitors when the Letter of Declare was issued , it was cheap for them to type the view that basic damages have been more likely to be inside a full legal responsibility vary of £11,730 to £26,050. There was additionally an affordable prospect that the probably worth of the general declare may embrace further components comparable to lack of earnings, lack of time beyond regulation, and to a lesser extent care prices.
The decide was glad that given the clear and unambiguous directions her solicitors had acquired ‘from their sturdy and stoic shopper’ who had not withheld any of her medical historical past or different related issues, they may not be mentioned to have unreasonably valued the case in extra of the Protocol restrict. The Courtroom present in favour of Ms Johnson on this subject.
Paragraph 4.3 (8) of the Protocol states that ‘this Protocol doesn’t apply to a declare … for damages in relation to hurt, abuse or neglect of or by youngsters or susceptible adults’. Having reviewed the varied authorized authorities, the decide mentioned that whereas E was undoubtedly a susceptible grownup, there was nothing to recommend that he would have had any consciousness that his behaviour in pushing a carer may trigger an damage or hurt or represent an assault.
The Courtroom concluded that on the info of this explicit case there was an absence of hurt, abuse or neglect of or by the susceptible grownup; that being so, have been it not for the moderately assessed worth of the case on the outset the Protocol would have utilized. The Declare was settled with out the difficulty of proceedings for a damages determine of £16,500. 
Reference: [2025] EWCH 1020 (SCCO)
