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: 17th February 2025

This week we examine a decision on the tension between open justice and protection of commercially sensitive information (we understand, by the way, that on 25th February the Court of Appeal will hear the appeal in PMC relating to the circumstances in which anonymity orders…

The Dekagram: 10th February 2025

This week we look at two decisions, both of which will be of critical importance to practitioners in pursuance of contested litigation. In one, unusually, without prejudice correspondence was admissible in a case involving fundamental dishonesty; whilst in the other, the court reviewed the authorities…

Andrew Warnock KC and Edwin Buckett successfully defend the Chief Constable of Leicestershire in a £10m brain damage claim

Following a 5-day liability trial in the High Court in Manchester, the Claimant’s negligence and Human Rights Act claims were dismissed by HHJ Bird sitting as a Judge of the High Court. The Claimant was a Type 1 diabetic who suffered from a history of…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2025

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.)