High Court decision clarifies injury claims

On 28 April 2025, the High Court of Justice issued a significant judgment in the case of Julie Johnson v Choice Support, with Deputy Costs Judge Erwin-Jones presiding over proceedings in the Senior Courts Costs Office. This case emerged from an incident on Christmas Day 2018, when Julie Johnson, a caregiver, sustained injuries while attending to a vulnerable adult known as 'E'. The ruling addressed critical Points of Dispute concerning the application of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury claims.

The circumstances of the incident were poignant, as Johnson had been caring for patient E for over five years. On that fateful day, she attempted to empty E's catheter bag while crouching down due to a broken stool that had not been replaced. The situation escalated when E inadvertently pushed her during the process, causing Johnson to lose her balance and sustain a painful back injury. This injury led to further complications, including a herniated disc, raising doubts about her future work capabilities.

Throughout the legal proceedings, Johnson's solicitors relied primarily on a witness statement instead of submitting a complete file of evidence for assessment. This tactic raised questions regarding whether they had accurately valued her claim within the limits set by the Pre-Action Protocol. The court scrutinised various guidelines, including the Judicial College Guidelines for orthopaedic injuries, concluding that Johnson's injuries were likely to fall into the moderate range for compensation, taking into account her medical history and the injury's impact on her life.

A critical aspect of the ruling involved examining whether E’s actions could be deemed "harm, abuse, or neglect" as outlined in the protocol. The court acknowledged concerns about E's behaviour but ultimately found no evidence of intentional harm. Consequently, it was determined that the claim did not meet the protocol's exclusions concerning harm.

In its judgment, the court underscored the Defendant's liability due to their failure to provide a suitable stool for staff, which was deemed necessary for performing care duties safely. However, the ruling also highlighted the need to differentiate between unintentional risk and deliberate misconduct within care settings. Ultimately, the case was settled for £16,500, illustrating the intricate nature of personal injury claims linked to employment law, especially in contexts involving vulnerable individuals.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder for employers and employees in similar fields to prioritise safety measures to prevent avoidable injuries, while also clarifying the legal frameworks surrounding personal injury claims in the UK.

Copyright & permissions