Court Case Confirms 'Double Jeopardy' Rule Applies To Damages Payments

A recent court case concerning a Midlands care worker and her employer, Wolverhampton City Council, has clarified a complex area of law regarding the payment of contractual benefits, such as sick pay, in cases of multiple claims.

The ruling from the Court of Appeal is good news for businesses as it confirms that employees cannot bring about further claims against their employers once a subsequent event takes place. Suzanne Hawkins, the solicitor from Midlands law firm Browne Jacobson who acted for the defendant, said: "This ruling is good news for the insurance industry as it brings clarity to an area of law that has been in confusion for some time. Clear rulings on complex issues such as contractual benefits should be welcomed by insurers and employers as they provide guidance on future cases and also deter employees from bringing spurious or speculative claims to court."

Mrs Brazier, a care assistant, suffered an acceleration injury to her back while at work in 2003. She had continued to work, undertaking lighter duties until this work ceased to be available and was paid sick pay thereafter and given notice of ill health retirement.

Unfortunately, during this notice period Mrs Brazier was involved in a road traffic accident which rendered her unfit for work of any kind. While it was initially judged that Mrs Brazier should be paid the sick pay and light duty earnings which she would have received at the end of the acceleration period, the recent Court of Appeal ruling has overruled the original judgment.

It was conceded by Mrs Brazier that the judge had been wrong and that, on his findings of fact, if one ignored the road traffic accident, the correct hypothesis was that she would, at the end of the acceleration period, have been working in suitable light employment, earning sums at least equivalent to those she had received as a care assistant. In effect, the initial injury had simply accelerated Mrs Brazier's receipt of sick pay and light work earnings.

The claimant advanced an alternative argument, however, to the effect that she would, but for the accident at work, have had her full contractual sick pay entitlement available to her at the date of the road traffic accident. Therefore, but for the first accident, she would have received a full year of sick pay following the road traffic accident. As a consequence of the...