Damages for loss of a carer in a fatal case: Full commercial rate applied to claim for future loss of services
For many years the courts have endeavored to provide guidance for the appropriate approach to damages when a “carer” is killed. The principles relating to lost of an “income earner” are generally well established. Over the past few decades there has been a move away from the notion that damages for the loss of those who provide care and services should be nominal. The courts today are more likely to embark on a serious analysis of the value of the services that the dependents have lost. This is a case in point.
Published: July 13th, 2026
6 min read
The case
Graham Burgess v Dominik Sikorski & Anor [2026] EWHC 1245 (KB) Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC.
The facts
Michelle Griffiths was killed in a road traffic accident. Liability was agreed with a 30% reduction for contributory negligence. She worked as a carer and also took the lead in looking after the household and her two, adult, disabled sons.
The primary issues
Michelle had been the principal organiser of the household and provided substantial support to her husband Ian and their adult sons Aaron and Matthew, both of whom had learning disabilities, with Aaron also suffering from epilepsy. The evidence showed that Michelle’s role included domestic management, financial administration, supervision, assistance with benefits and medical matters, and ongoing support for the sons’ special needs. Issues arose as to how the value of the services provided by Michelle should be valued and apportioned.
What happened - in a nutshell
Past Services Dependency
The Court rejected the claimant’s expert’s assessment as overstating Michelle’s contribution and preferred a more moderate approach. It found that Michelle would have provided:
18 hours per week of general domestic/household services; and 8 hours per week of additional support related to Aaron and Matthew’s disabilities, for a total of 26 hours per week.
Applying the Day Aggregate Rate, a conventional 25% gratuitous-care discount, and the agreed actuarial adjustment, the Court awarded:
Total past services dependency: £70,668.
Apportionment of Past Services Dependency
The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the entire award should be allocated to Ian because he had provided replacement care. Instead, it apportioned the award according to each dependent’s actual loss:
Ian - £16,308
Aaron - £27,180
Matthew - £27,180
Future Services Dependency
The Court held that future dependency should be valued on a commercial replacement basis immediately, rather than waiting until Ian and other family members could no longer provide assistance.
The Court approved provision for:
A housekeeper; Miscellaneous domestic support; A support worker for Aaron and Matthew; Emergency call alarms and ongoing case management.
It rejected claims for a live-in carer, finding that the evidence did not establish any need for overnight supervision.
The Court assessed total future services dependency (excluding deputyship fees) at: £969,708.
Apportionment of Future Services Dependency
The Court again adopted a principled approach based on the actual value of services each dependent would receive:
Ian - £137,386
Aaron - £416,161
Matthew - £416,161
Deputyship Fees
The principal legal issue was whether deputyship fees could be recovered under the FAA.
The Court held that they were recoverable. Although deputyship fees were not themselves a benefit Michelle would have provided, they were a necessary corollary to enabling Aaron and Matthew to access and use the dependency awards intended to replace Michelle’s services. The Court regarded them as part of providing “full compensation” for the loss of dependency. The Judge gave permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on this issue.
The award for future services
As we have seen the judge gave a “traditional” discount of 25% for past loss of services. However the claim for future loss of services was calculated on the basis of the full commercial costs being recoverable immediately.
For further information please contact John Myles
