Fatal Accident Multipliers – the law finally changes



In a unanimous judgment handed down this morning (Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9), the Supreme Court has overruled the principle established by the case of Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556 and held that multipliers for future losses in a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 should be calculated at the date of trial rather than the date of death.

In a single judgment written by Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale (with whom Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge all agreed) the Court had “no hesitation” in invoking the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234 that allows them to depart from precedent in order to achieve justice. In doing so, they fully endorsed the conclusions of the Law Commission in their report on Claims for Wrongful Death (1999) that actuarially calculated multipliers should be used for calculating future losses from the date of trial.

The Court highlighted that the existing approach, whereby multipliers were chosen at the date of death, meant that a claimant was suffering a discount for early receipt of the money when in fact that money was not received until after trial or settlement. This resulted in an “illogical” and “unfair outcome”. The Court went on to conclude that:

“The fact that there has been a material change in the relevant legal landscape since the earlier decisions, namely the decision in Wells v Wells and the adoption of the Ogden Tables, when taken with the other factors just mentioned, gives rise to an overwhelming case for changing the law.”

The Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the system of calculating fatal accident claims needed to viewed as a whole, with any disadvantage caused by the adoption of multipliers at death being counter-balanced by aspects of current legislation leading to over-compensation (such as the disregard of financial benefits accruing under section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976). The Court held that any such over-compensation resulted from “legislative choices” and not judicial decisions and that “it would be wrong to preserve what is now known to be a flawed practice affecting most claimants in order to counteract those choices”.


This is a very welcome and long overdue decision that corrects a well-recognized unfairness in the law and will lead to claimants in fatal accident cases receiving higher damages in line with the overriding principle of full compensation. It should also encourage defendants to engage with and settle cases at an earlier stage, thereby reducing the inevitable distress that is associated with such litigation post death.

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 20th May 2024

We trust that our readers have been enjoying the Spring sunshine; the team have spent their time in the sun wisely, reading cases so you don’t have to. First we noted a decision which considers the interplay between English and Scottish guardianship; secondly we read…

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…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024


Portfolio Builder

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

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


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