nm1151: okay you probably remember [0.7] that we are dealing with compensation 
now so we're looking at damages awards [0.7] and just to recap [0.2] the [0.4] 
topics we covered yesterday [0.6] do you remember we er were looking at the way 
the [0.2] judiciary will calculate [0.4] the damages [0.7] and we finished 
yesterday's class by considering the new [0.2] method of calculation [0.9] 
called the use of the Ogden tables [1.2] if you remember [0.5] previous to this 
summer [0.4] the judges had relied on [0.6] a fairly arcane form [0.7] of 
calculation using something called the multiplier method [0.6] where you took a 
sum which was usually the net earnings [0.4] and multiplied by a figure [0.2] 
that they had [0.3] taken from precedent really [0.8] and we saw yesterday [0.
3] that [0.7] the new method under the Ogden tables and the reduced [0.2] 
interest rate of three per cent [0.6] did result in quite a substantial 
difference in the amount of the awards [0.8] so where judiciary now use [0.2] 
these Ogden tables which are based more on [0.2] economics [0.3] the awards are 
[0.5] can be quite a lot higher [0.3] than [0.2] where they used the multiplier 
so 
quite a significant change [0.3] has occurred this summer in the case of Wells 
and Wells [0.5] House of Lords decision [2.4] i want to move on now to 
something called the Smith and Manchester [0.3] award [0.2] hopefully you've 
got yesterday's handout in front of you [4.6] now [0.2] the Smith and 
Manchester [0.2] case was also quite important a nineteen-seventy-four [0.4] 
decision [0.8] and what this award was really dealing w-, [0.2] with was the 
situation where the plaintiff [0.2] was actually in employment at the time of 
trial [1.5] so we weren't dealing with a situation where the the injured party 
was completely [0.4] er unable to to work we now have a situation where the 
plaintiff [0.2] was actually working at trial [2.2] and of course this will be 
quite a difficult assessment for the court [0.3] to try to calculate [0.3] to 
what extent the injury [0.6] will affect [0.2] the plaintiff in the future in 
terms of his ability to work [2.0] however in this case [0.3] the court did 
indicate to us [0.2] that there's certain things they would take [0.3] on board 
[0.4] in assessing [0.5] the 
future [1.7] workability if you like the future ability to to go back on to the 
labour market [1.0] sometime [0.6] in in the future [1.6] and [0.3] the 
solicitor who's maybe looking at [0.2] the question of a Smith and Manchester 
award [0.3] has now been [0.3] guided [0.8] to look at certain issues [1.5] and 
these are the following [0.7] well first of all of course they will consider 
what the plaintiff's [0.4] present or current wage is [2.0] they will look at 
[0.4] the plaintiff's future prospects [3.2] and thirdly they need to consider 
of course [0.3] the ability of the plaintiff [0.3] to obtain [0.3] work in the 
future or whether there will be an impact on that plaintiff [0.5] resulting 
from the injury [2.6] now again like most of these calculations as we have seen 
[0.2] a lot of it is hypothetical [0.2] we don't really know what is going to 
happen in the future [0.6] and what real impact the injury might have [0.3] on 
the plaintiff [0.2] in terms of [0.3] labour his ability to to fall back on the 
labour market [1.9] so these Smith and Manchester claims are quite complicated 
[0.4] and require the use of expert 
evidence to try and assess [0.4] the impact that the injury has had on the 
plaintiff's [0.3] ability to work [4.7] so for example you might have experts 
called in [0.2] to look at the [0.3] particular occupation in which the 
plaintiff is is [0.3] working [0.3] and assess [0.4] the future prospects [0.2] 
in that occupation [1.1] so for example [0.2] is it likely [0.2] that [0.6] 
there are going to be difficulties in employment in the future [0.3] in this 
area of work [1.7] and obviously particularly [0.2] in relation [0.2] to the 
plaintiff's own employment [0.9] to what extent does the disability [0.2] 
affect this plaintiff [0.2] in terms of the general [0.8] employment situation 
[0.3] of the job [2.7] they might need evidence as to [0.5] the possible need 
for the plaintiff [0.2] to move areas to seek employment [0.4] so that's a 
possible impact [0.2] from a disability from an injury [0.3] to what extent 
does [0.3] our plaintiff [0.2] need to go elsewhere to seek employment [2.3] 
thirdly you might get expert evidence called in [0.3] to look at the [0.6] 
unusual insecurity [0.3] of the particular [0.3] occupation in which the 
plaintiff [0.2] is in [2.4] so a difficult assessment but 
an important one [0.3] it does try to take account [0.3] of the impact of the 
injury on the plaintiff's [0.3] ability to work in the future [1.0] and as i 
said [0.3] experts called in to look [0.2] generally at the this area of 
employment [0.4] and also at the particulars [0.4] of the plaintiff's case [0.
3] can the plaintiff [0.3] er does he have to move elsewhere [0.3] what's this 
occupation [0.2] likely [0.3] er what's going to happen to it in the future are 
there [0.2] insecurities in this job [2.6] so in addition to obviously 
calculating using the Ogden tables [0.2] do be aware of the Smith and 
Manchester awards if you go into practice in this area you'll certainly [0.3] 
be looking [0.3] at the s-, er Smith and Manchester [0.3] type of claim so you 
need to be aware of its existence [4.0] now we said that in terms of pecuniary 
loss the major part of the compensation of course [0.3] comes from loss of 
earnings [1.9] so that is by far the bulk and we said yesterday as well [0.3] 
that if you have [0.4] a high earning [0.2] plaintiff [0.2] of course that 
plaintiff's [0.6] damages are going to be quite large [1.1] compared to 
somebody who's maybe not in employment or is not earning [0.2] too much money 
[2.4] but there is another type of claim that can be latched on to this general 
loss of earnings [0.5] and pain and suffering which we mentioned yesterday [0.
5] and this is a rather unusual type of claim which we call [0.3] the loss of 
life expectancy [1.3] this is at [0.3] point seven-four [0.2] on your handouts 
[3.8] now again [0.5] a difficult [0.5] issue to assess [0.2] what we're trying 
to [1.1] compensate for here is something called the claim for the lost years 
this is what this is known as [0.8] in other words [0.3] we try to look at what 
was the expectation of life [0.3] before the accident [2.3] now clearly [0.2] 
certain injuries are going to be [0.2] quite serious [0.3] and ha-, will have 
an impact on life expectancy [0.3] of the plaintiff [0.2] and this is what 
we're dealing with here those lost years [0.3] that arise [0.3] out of a 
serious injury [2.9] and in nineteen-eighty in the judgement of Picket against 
[0.5] B-R Engineering [0.8] the House of Lords did look at this question [0.3] 
of the [0.3] lost years the loss [0.2] of life expectancy [1.9] and 
they held importantly [0.3] that the plaintiff [0.4] could claim [0.3] for loss 
of ye-, earnings [0.3] for those years [0.2] which he had lost [0.4] as a 
result [0.3] of the accident [1.2] in other words [1.2] you can claim [0.2] for 
years in which [0.6] you would have been working but you have died earlier than 
you would have done [0.3] as a result of the injury [2.6] so you are assuming 
of course [0.2] that the plaintiff [0.4] has [0.3] lived his life to the full 
[0.7] and you calculate [0.6] damages [0.3] for those lost years [3.0] the one 
part however [0.2] that will be deducted from this [0.3] calculation for loss 
of life expectancy lost years [0.4] is [0.4] any money that the plaintiff may 
have spent [0.3] on his or her own maintenance [2.4] so again an important 
decision [0.7] our plaintiff [0.4] has lost [1.5] a certain amount of life as a 
result of the injury is going to die earlier than he or she would have done [0.
9] but we ignore that factor [0.3] and we allow [0.3] the plaintiff to claim 
for loss of earnings [0.3] in that period [0.3] after death [0.2] until [0.4] 
presumed retirement sixty-five [2.6] but as i said [0.5] do note a deduction [0.
2] for maintenance cost personal 
maintenance costs [2.0] and those are taken on board in the calculation [7.5] 
now of course loss of life expectancy will only [0.3] really apply to [0.5] 
plaintiffs who are injured quite seriously and will probably die earlier [1.0] 
than if the injury had not occurred [0.7] something that is more usual in terms 
of compensation most people will claim something under this heading [0.4] is 
medical [0.3] and other nursing expenses [4.8] basically the plaintiff can 
claim for reasonable expenses under this heading of medical and nursing [0.2] 
costs [0.8] obviously [0.2] these expenses [0.3] should have [0.3] er resulted 
[0.6] from the injury [0.4] with which we're concerned [4.1] and they can 
include not only medical [0.3] charges [0.2] but also expenses incurred in 
travelling for example [0.3] to hospital [0.2] to receive treatment [1.2] but 
they must [0.4] be related [0.3] to the accident [0.3] fairly common sense 
there [1.9] but you can claim [0.4] for medical care [0.3] and importantly [0.
4] you can claim for private [0.2] medical care [2.3] and this was introduced 
quite early on [0.3] in the nineteen-forty-eight act which you have 
on your [0.5] outline the Law Reform [0.3] Personal Injuries Act [0.4] under 
section two-four [1.9] Law Reform Personal Injuries Act of nineteen-forty-eight 
[0.4] section two-four [0.9] stated [0.3] that a plaintiff [0.6] could [0.8] 
charge [0.3] from private [0.2] medical [0.5] er expenses [0.6] and recover 
them [0.2] despite the existence [0.2] of the N-H-S [2.4] so quite an important 
development there that you're not restricted to using [0.3] N-H-S hospitals [0.
2] you can actually [0.5] go for private [1.7] hospitals pri-, and use private 
medicine [0.7] and the act covers you for that [6.5] however [1.5] in nineteen-
eighty-two an additional statute came in to effect which is the Administration 
[0.3] of Justice Act [1.2] the Administration of Justice Act of nineteen-eighty-
two [1.6] and this stated [0.3] that if a saving had been made [0.8] because [0.
3] an individual chose to go [0.6] to at the public's expense to use an N-H ho-,
S hospital for example [0.3] then [0.2] these savings [0.2] should be set off 
[0.3] against [0.3] the loss of [0.2] income [2.9] so if a saving is made [0.9] 
by an individual because [0.4] they were ma-, maintained at public expense for 
example in a 
hospital [1.3] then the act tells us [0.6] such savings [0.6] must be set off 
[0.4] against [0.3] the loss of income [6.6] now [0.2] of course if you are 
suffering an injury you're not only er going to need to look at the issue of [0.
3] medical expenses [0.2] there may be quite a lot of additional expenses [0.2] 
for which you would want to [0.2] claim [1.2] and again [0.2] these other 
pecuniary expenses [0.3] can be added [0.2] to the er claim there's nothing 
wrong [0.2] with [0.3] no-, er adding dow-, er noting on on your claim form [0.
4] a number of additional losses [0.2] as long [0.4] as they are reasonably 
incurred [1.8] so for example [0.4] cost of medicine [0.2] and prescription 
charges [0.3] will be [1.2] covered if they're reasonable [2.0] you might for 
example [0.2] need [0.2] to have provisional special medical equipment for 
example a wheelchair [0.3] that is also covered [2.5] in serious cases [0.3] 
you might be required to adapt your home [0.9] to introduce for example some 
form of lift [0.4] and again [1.6] the cost of such adaptation of the home [0.
2] will be covered [0.2] under this heading of pecuniary losses [6.0] you might 
actually need to seek alternative 
accommodation that's quite possible [0.3] maybe the house you're in which 
you're in [0.6] two storeys three storeys you can't cope with it as a result of 
your disability [0.2] and you [0.2] you may have to move [0.3] or to alter it 
[1.4] again if it's reasonable [0.2] that is covered under this heading [2.5] 
one point to note however just on this point about alterations [0.4] if a party 
does alter the house [1.4] and this is quite reasonable [0.7] but it increases 
the value of the home [0.3] then you do need to give credit [0.2] for [0.2] 
this [0.4] increase in value and that makes this calculation [0.2] quite 
difficult [0.9] so if you alter your home [0.4] and that's quite reasonable in 
view of your injury [0.4] but it increases the value [0.3] then you do [0.2] 
need to give account for it the plaintiff does have to give credit [0.3] for 
this [0.2] value this increase in value [4.3] finally under this heading of 
other pecuniary losses [0.6] you might er [0.2] have [0.6] future costs of care 
[1.7] so if you have care at home [0.5] for example you might need to get 
nursing care [0.3] then you can also [0.2] recover [0.2] for these future costs 
of 
care [0.3] at home [0.3] as long [0.3] as again they are reasonable [5.2] now 
clearly that would mean if you had [0.2] specialist nurses coming into your 
home to look after you [0.2] then you can charge for that under this claim you 
can add it to your claim [0.7] but [0.2] most people probably choose not to do 
that to have [0.2] nurses may [0.4] opt rather to have a member of the family 
[0.2] looking after them so what happens [0.5] if instead of a nurse [0.3] a 
fully qualified nurse [0.2] you have [0.3] a member of your family [0.3] 
choosing to look after you [1.3] can you claim anything for them [1.8] well yes 
you can [0.6] the plaintiff is entitled [0.4] to recover [0.2] the [0.7] proper 
and reasonable cost [0.4] of supplying [0.2] those [0.2] needs [1.6] so the 
plaintiff is entitled where a family member's looking after them [0.4] to 
recover the proper [0.4] and reasonable cost [0.4] of supplying the needs [3.3] 
so for example [0.3] if a relative [0.3] does have to give up work [1.6] and 
will obviously lose out in terms of their earning capacity [0.7] then those 
loss of earnings [0.3] are recoverable [1.4] provided they're not excessive [0.
2] and go well beyond [0.2] 
what it would cost to have nursing care [2.0] so [0.3] if your member of your 
family does [0.2] give up work [1.6] you can claim for loss of those earnings 
[0.2] as long [0.2] as they don't exceed [0.3] the commercial cost [0.2] of 
nursing [0.2] care [1.4] and you'll see on the sheet there is a case [0.4] 
dealing with that [0.3] and that's the case of Housecroft [0.3] against [0.4] 
Burnett [0.2] nineteen-eighty-six decision [0.2] which looked at this issue [4.
9] okay so that's the the main heads of damages that we've covered we saw that 
there were special damages [0.2] and general damages [0.2] special being the 
easier part [0.3] to calculate [0.3] general being more difficult because it 
was looking at post-trial [1.3] we've seen [0.2] that there's a pecuniary loss 
[0.2] as well as [0.2] non-pecuniary loss and of course pecuniary loss [0.2] 
was mainly [0.6] loss of earnings whereas non-pecuniary loss [0.2] we were 
looking at such matters loss of amenity [0.3] pain and suffering [0.2] which we 
saw were quite difficult [0.3] to calculate [3.8] now that's all very well you 
might think well that's the end of the story in terms of calculation [0.3] but 
in fact [0.2] it is not [1.1] 
because [0.3] most injured parties [1.0] waiting for trial waiting for their 
settlement [0.7] will be receiving some form of benefit from the state [3.5] 
and we now get into quite a [0.7] a nasty area if you like of the law [2.2] the 
Conservative government introduced a piece of legislation in nineteen-eighty-
nine called the Social Security Act [1.3] to look into this issue or deal with 
[0.2] the er the question of benefits what do you do [0.3] when a party is 
receiving benefits from the state [0.7] do you [0.3] take back those benefits 
from that party [0.2] from their compensation award [0.5] or not [2.7] and as i 
said in nineteen-eighty-nine [0.2] the Conservative government [0.4] introduced 
quite a contentious piece of legislation [1.0] which had severe [0.3] effects 
[0.3] on a number of [0.2] plaintiffs [5.6] basically what they said in this er 
[0.3] statute [0.5] was that [1.2] a certain percentage of the benefits most of 
the benefits would be clawed back [0.2] by the state [0.3] out of the 
compensation award [3.5] so the plaintiff might anticipate a certain amount of 
money [0.2] say twenty-thousand pounds [0.4] but [0.2] had received ten-
thousand 
pounds in benefits [2.1] under this statute [0.3] the state had the right [0.3] 
to take back those benefits [0.3] from the party [0.3] claw them back [0.3] to 
the state coffers [0.6] and of course [0.2] that meant [0.2] in a lot of cases 
that the plaintiff was left either with [0.3] very little money in my example 
ten-thousand pounds [0.3] or none [0.3] at all [1.7] and as you know from [0.2] 
from your first seminar [0.2] when we were looking at how long it takes for 
cases to get to court [0.3] we saw that often [0.2] plaintiffs have been 
waiting for ages before [0.3] they can actually get redress and compensation [0.
3] so they might have quite a few years [0.2] of benefits [0.2] and that mounts 
up [0.3] and the state [0.2] had the right under this act [0.2] to claw them 
back [1.4] so let's just take some examples [0.2] of the impact of clawback [1.
4] these are very sort of basic [0.5] overviews of what happened [2.2] but 
gives you an idea of what we're talking about [0.3] [4.9] [5.9] so under the 
nineteen-eighty-nine act [0.4] and prior to ninety-seven because we'll see in a 
moment the legislation has changed again [1.0] this is what 
occurred let's say our pain-, plaintiff had fifty-thousand [0.5] in damages [3.
8] everyone see that [0.5] fifty-thousand pounds [1.3] and of s-, let's assume 
that the benefits equalled [0.8] fifteen [1.9] now we're just making a very 
straightforward [0.5] er calculation here that fifty minus fifteen of course is 
thirty-five-thousand [1.7] but [0.2] this did not all go [0.2] to our [0.2] 
plaintiff [0.5] what happened was [0.3] that that fifteen-thousand of the 
benefits [0.3] was clawed back [1.2] to a special agency [0.2] called the 
Compensation [0.2] Recovery [0.2] Unit [13.3] so even though our plaintiff has 
quite a substantial award in the damages [2.1] he will only receive [0.2] this 
smaller amount [0.3] and this is of course [0.2] paid [0.3] by [0.2] the 
defendant [0.2] to the plaintiff [4.7] now that's a very straightforward 
example [1.1] the situation worsens of course [0.3] if [0.3] the plaintiff [0.
3] is found to be [0.2] contributorily negligent [3.7] so for example if our 
plaintiff has been awarded [0.4] twenty-thousand pounds [0.3] in damages [1.0] 
and there's quite a large reduction [0.9] for contributory negligence [3.8] and 
a r-, a receipt of benefits [0.2] of ten-thousand pounds [3.7] 
then of course our poor old plaintiff has lost out fifty per cent already has 
ten-thousand [1.1] in terms of the damages [1.0] and [0.9] the benefits go to 
the C-R-U [0.4] so [0.6] will be left with zero [6.0] the only situation where 
there was a slight difference in the calculation [0.3] was where a plaintiff [0.
4] actually received an award that was below two-and-a-half-thousand [8.7] so 
and everything above two-and-a-half-thousand [0.7] the C-R-U was entitled to 
claw back the full amount of the benefits [1.6] less than two-and-a-half-
thousand [0.2] they halved the benefits that they were taking back [8.9] so for 
example [0.2] let's assume [0.3] instead of a higher amount our plaintiff is 
awarded [0.3] two-thousand pounds [0.4] so he's below that two-thousand-five-
hundred [0.2] threshold [2.0] and has received [0.3] one-and-a-half-thousand [0.
4] in benefits prior to the settlement of two-thousand [2.9] instead of the C-R-
U taking all of that as we saw previously they take the full amount [0.3] they 
actually [0.2] halved [0.2] that amount because we're dealing here with such 
small amounts [2.1] 
so one-thousand-five-hundred doesn't go to the C-R-U instead [2.3] seven-
hundred-and-fifty pounds half of the [0.2] amount of benefit [0.4] goes to the 
C-R-U [2.3] and [0.2] our plaintiff [0.3] is [0.5] given [1.8] one-thousand- [0.
2] two-hundred-and-fifty [5.4] so that basically was the situation [0.5] prior 
to nineteen-ninety-seven following the nineteen- [0.4] er - [0.4] eighty-nine 
act [0.3] that anything above two-and-a-half-thousand [0.5] they would claw 
back the full amount of the benefits [0.2] and the plaintiff would have to [0.
3] get whatever was left how s-, ever small [0.6] below that slightly different 
you only halve the benefits [0.3] because of the small amounts [0.2] that we're 
talking about here [2.7] now what happened and we'll see in a moment we'll have 
a videos er the impact was quite severe [0.5] the plaintiffs were often [0.4] 
bullied by insurance companies [0.3] into accepting [0.5] two-and-a-half-
thousand as a settlement figure [2.0] because they had had so much in terms of 
benefits [0.3] that it really wasn't worth the effort [0.3] of trying to pursue 
[0.8] the defendant [0.2] to get as large a claim as 
possible they knew [0.2] they would lose a large proportion [0.3] in terms of 
[0.4] benefit [2.2] and we'll see in a moment [0.2] that a number of plaintiffs 
were forced into accepting [0.2] two-and-a-half-thousand pounds [0.4] as [0.5] 
a result [1.6] so i'm now going to show you just a very quick clip o-, in the 
video and you'll see the impact of this legislation [0.3] and then we'll talk 
about [0.2] what the changes were introduced by the Labour government [0.2] in 
nineteen-ninety-seven 
nm1151: so you can see f-, quite clearly i think from from that [0.2] short 
clip the impact and the quite serious impact that the legislation did have [0.
4] on victims [0.6] and [0.3] also i hope you understood the point about the 
two-and-a-half-thousand [0.4] that they were offering [0.4] basically obviously 
if the claim was er [1.4] er [0.5] say thirty-thousand as er the example given 
in the the video [0.2] she was going to lose a substantial or most of that 
amount [0.3] from the claim [0.3] then what was happening was that insurance 
companies [0.3] were offering this figure of two-and-a-half-thousand [0.2] 
which was unaffected [0.2] so basically [0.2] 
lots of cases were settled [0.3] in this quite desi-, derisory amount [0.4] if 
you take into account the actual value of some of the claims i think she said 
[0.3] originally it was quoted at being [0.3] fifty-thousand pounds [0.7] the 
solicitor suggested that she would get [0.3] thirty-thousand [0.3] and all of 
that [0.3] was going to go [0.3] in the benefits [1.7] in any case [0.8] so [0.
6] pressure as indicated from insurance companies to accept the minimum that 
would be unaffected and that was the two-and-a-half-thousand pounds [0.3] so 
quite a few people were settling for this amount because they were really 
unsure [0.3] as to the amount they would [0.3] get i mean the solicitor may 
have got it wrong and maybe that was bad advice [0.3] you know maybe they 
should have pushed for the fifty-thousand pounds [0.3] and in that case they 
would have [0.3] they would have got twenty-thousand we can assume [0.4] but 
also [0.4] do note as the film said [0.6] you would still have your benefits 
deducted [0.2] if it had been appealed and again that was a second negative 
thing about the legislation [0.4] that [0.4] if you were er the 
the case was appealed [0.3] then you were still having benefits and they could 
still be deducted [0.2] so quite substantial losses in some cases [2.2] in its 
manifesto though the Labour Party did say [0.4] as a result of the er petitions 
[0.2] that it would change this legislation and fortunately [0.2] it did do so 
in ninety-sev nineteen-ninety-seven [3.8] and you'll see on your handout at 
eight [0.2] the name of the act was The Social Security Recovery of Benefits 
Act [0.2] of ninety-seven [0.3] which came into force from October [0.2] 
nineteen-ninety-seven [0.2] and there are also associated [0.2] regulations [0.
2] with the statute [2.4] now the important difference between this act [0.2] 
and the previous nineteen-eighty-nine act [0.3] is that [0.2] general damages 
are said to be [0.2] ring fenced [0.5] so this er important word ring fencing 
[9.6] and that effectively means [0.2] we're going back really to a pre-
nineteen-eighty-nine position [0.3] in that parts of the general damages [0.2] 
are protected [0.2] that they cannot be targeted in terms of [0.4] de-, er 
deducting these benefits [0.3] so that benefits must be set off [0.2] 
against [0.3] certain heads of special damages [0.8] so ring fencing means [0.
2] there's a protection for some of the general damages [0.4] and if you do 
have benefit [0.2] then you take them off [0.2] certain heads [0.2] of the 
special damages [0.8] and you're left really with [0.3] a large part of your 
general damages as a result being intact and if you remember [0.5] in the clip 
[0.5] there was a [0.2] a graph shown as to the pre-nineteen-eighty-nine 
position [0.3] that you've got a smaller part of the compensation in general 
damages being affected [0.3] that's effectively what's [0.3] happening [0.2] 
here [3.7] so let's take an example to explain [0.2] the difference between [0.
2] the nineteen-eighty-nine legislation where we saw most of the benefits 
coming off [0.5] and this new act [3.8] let's assume first of all that our de-, 
general damages [0.4] are [0.4] five-thousand pounds [4.2] pretrial loss of 
earnings [3.9] le-, [0.6] we will have a figure of fifteen-thousand [0.2] 
[cough] [2.3] past care costs let's assume [0.4] are five-thousand [3.0] so 
that's a bit of nu-, nursing costs th-, those types of expenses which we 
mentioned earlier [4.8] and that there 
may be er loss in the future as a result of this injury in terms of [0.3] maybe 
er alterations [0.5] et cetera [0.3] issues arising as a result of the injury 
[0.9] this totals [0.2] surprise surprise fifty-thousand pounds [2.3] and the 
benefits received [4.8] let's assume a c-, incapacity benefit [1.5] of twelve-
and-a-half [2.1] and [0.2] attendance allowance [5.5] of seven-and-a-half [0.5] 
doesn't matter really what these benefits are we're just giving some form of 
figure [0.3] to the benefits [2.8] so in total [0.2] our benefits are twenty-
thousand pounds [3.4] [cough] [0.5] basically [0.2] we set off against certain 
[0.2] heads of damage [2.0] and twelve-and-a-half-thousand [0.3] can be set off 
[0.3] against [0.8] loss of earnings [6.1] and the statute tells us [0.2] which 
er [0.3] benefits are set off against which heads [0.7] so incapacity we are 
told [0.2] is set off against loss of earnings [3.4] whereas [1.8] attendance 
allowance [0.8] is actually set off against the past care costs [11.7] now if 
we look at past care [0.3] we see that we've only got five-thousand pounds [0.
3] under past care [0.6] but we're told under the legislation we can only set 
off [0.2] against past care costs [0.3] so in in fact [0.2] 
we can only set off against [0.2] five-thousand pounds [1.4] effectively then 
we've made a gain in terms of benefits because the total of course that we can 
set off [0.3] is twelve-and-a-half [0.3] plus five-thousand [0.3] which means 
[0.2] the total we're settling off [0.5] is [0.3] seventeen- [0.3] and-a-half-
thousand [1.5] okay [0.2] so the legislation tells us [0.3] which [0.3] parts 
[0.3] of the [0.2] damages [0.2] awards can [0.4] be affected [0.4] and in the 
case of incapacity it's loss of earnings [0.3] in the case of attendance 
allowance [0.2] it's past care and fortunately here [0.3] we've actually [0.4] 
got a smaller figure [0.2] so we've we've done a little bit better [0.4] by the 
setting off in any case [7.9] [cough] as a result then [0.3] what happens is 
that our defendant [0.3] is required to pay [9.9] fifty-thousand minus the set 
off [0.3] which is [0.4] thirty-two-and-a-half-thousand [0.5] to the plaintiff 
[4.6] and [3.1] the total that he has actually got in benefits there is twenty-
thousand [0.3] so the defendant still has to pay [0.3] twenty-thousand [0.4] to 
the [0.4] state [4.2] so what has happened effectively by this [0.3] is we've 
protected 
parts of our [0.4] plaintiff's claim [0.5] he does better than he would have 
done under the previous legislation because we can't set everything off as 
we've seen here [1.6] the defendant in fact [0.2] ends up [0.3] paying more 
money [0.2] as a result [0.7] so he's paid here [0.4] fifty-two- [0.3] and-a-
half-thousand [0.7] in total [0.5] for a claim [0.2] which is worth [0.3] fifty 
[0.3] so rather than [1.2] targeting the plaintiff and making the plaintiff 
suffer a little bit more under this legislation [0.3] we're protecting the 
plaintiff a little bit [0.4] and [0.3] asking the defendant [0.2] to pay [0.2] 
more money [0.2] so in the end [0.7] a better piece of legislation [0.2] and [0.
5] more pro plaintiff [1.1] okay are there any questions in relation to [0.3] 
what we've done today [2.1] i'm sorry if you couldn't understand the language 
in the video hope you got through the accents on that [1.8] okay thanks very 
much