Drafting counter schedules of loss in PI and clinical negligence claims

Produced in partnership with Louise Thomson

Practice notes

Drafting counter schedules of loss in PI and clinical negligence claims

Produced in partnership with Louise Thomson

Practice notes

STOP PRESS: The Lord Chancellor has announced that the discount rate will increase from minus 0.25% to positive 0.5% on 11 January 2025. This Practice Note will be updated with the new rate of positive 0.5% on 11 January 2025.

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on key elements required to draft a compelling counter schedule of loss. There is guidance on the best way to set out the defendant's response to the claimant's schedule of loss. Commonly claimed heads of past and future loss are considered in detail, together with links to relevant case law.

The claimant is expected to provide the defendant with a detailed breakdown of any past and future losses with supporting documentation. This enables a claim to be properly evaluated at an early stage, and an early valuation to be provided. Such documentation is helpful to both the solicitors and the claimant, as they can get a realistic view of what the claim is worth. From the defendant’s point of view, the breakdown is essential

Louise Thomson

Louise is an established specialist practitioner in Personal Injury and related areas. She regularly acts for both Claimants and Defendants and her practice primarily consists of matters involving employers' liability, holiday claims, occupiers liability, highway claims and road traffic accidents. She specialises in claims involving children and has considerable experience in the Coroners court.

Jurisdiction(s):

United Kingdom

Key definition:

Negligence definition

What does Negligence mean?

Negligence is 'the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do' (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781, at p 784). It is accepted that the test for breach of duty is objective, in the sense that the individual character and mental and physical features of the particular defendant are usually irrelevant.

��Ӱ��