Review of the decision in Mosson v Spousal (London) Ltd

Articles

05/02/2016

Cyrus Katrak summarises the decision in Mosson v Spousal (London) Ltd [2016] EWHC 53 (QB), [2016] WLR(D) 41 in the context of a Fatal Accidents Claim.

Many items fell to be decided by the trail Judge, Mr. Justice Garnham, but of particular interest to practitioners:

  • The costs of the wake, funeral attire and the purchase of a memorial bench were refused following Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2014] EWHC 2553 (QB) and Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27;
    • As the expenses claimed had to be be “reasonable in all circumstances” it was not reasonable to claim for the cost of the memorial bench or for clothing to be worn at the funeral [The cost of mourning clothes had been disallowed in Gammell v Wilson at first instance].
    • In Gammell v Wilson the Court of Appeal had also drawn a distinction between a headstone which marks the grave and was a legitimate funeral expense and a memorial which was not. The Judge therefore considered that a memorial bench was not a legitimate funeral expense.
  • A claim for probate was also refused as there was no reference to probate costs in the 1934 Act.
  • Loss of intangible services to reflect “..the additional value and convenience in having someone who is willing and able to provide these services out of love and affection rather than bringing in outside help and contractors” was refused. The Judge considered that this part of the claim was already covered by bereavement damages and a loss of service claim (which he had allowed) and that accordingly this was not a proper claim in law.

Featured Counsel

Cyrus Katrak

Call 1991

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 13th May 2024

Last week brought the news that the Australian airline Qantas and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have agreed to resolve their dispute over cancelled flights by asking the court to impose a $100 million fine, together with an undertaking by the airline to pay…

Max Melsa appears in Court of Appeal in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Max Melsa represented the children, through their Children’s Guardian, in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal specifically dealing with the interpretation of Hair-Strand Tests in care proceedings. The appeal was made by the mother against the interim separation of three children from…

Dekinar: Understanding the New Fixed Costs Regime for Cross-Border Claims

In this webinar, Thomas Yarrow and Anirudh Mandagere will take a look at the new fixed costs regime with a specific eye on its impacts on litigation with a cross-border element. Thomas and Anirudh will also answer any questions you may have on the issues…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)