Robshaw v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 923
QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES
Facts
The claimant suffered from severe cerebral palsy due to mismanagement of his birth. He required full time care for the remainder of his life. He was able to self feed to a very limited extent but was largely dependent on others to feed him. He was also unable to remain in his home without significant changes to the property to accommodate his extensive needs. The defendant accepted liability in negligence but disputed the quantum of damages.
Issue
The approach of the court to the quantification of damages in such a case as in issue. In particular, there was an issue as to whether the claimant should be classified as ‘self fed’ or ‘fed by others' for the purpose of estimating his life expectancy. A further issue was whether the damages for accommodation should reflect the cost of demolishing and entirely rebuilding the claimant’s property, or merely of adapting it.
Held
In terms of general approach, Foskett J stated that:
“…it all comes down eventually to the court’s evaluation of what is reasonable in all the circumstances” (para 42).
With regard to the life expectancy issue, the judge based his assessment on a figure in between the starting points for claimants who were ‘self feeding’ and those ‘fed by others’, in order to accurately reflect the complexity if his position.
With regard to the accommodation issue, the judge determined that adapting rather than rebuilding the property did not constitute reasonable mitigation, and therefore the defendant was liable for the full cost of demolishing and rebuilding the claimant’s home. The assessment of the claimant's needs was generous, with the judge even allowing his claim for the construction of a swimming pool.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Robshaw v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 923 (QB), as reported on BAILII. The core holdings described — Foskett J’s general approach to reasonableness in quantification, the intermediate life expectancy assessment, and the award of full rebuilding costs including a swimming pool — remain accurately stated.
The article remains a reliable summary of the case for the purposes for which it is presented. Readers should be aware, however, that this is a first-instance decision and carries persuasive rather than binding authority on quantum. More broadly, the assessment of damages in catastrophic injury cases (particularly care costs, accommodation, and life expectancy) continues to evolve through subsequent case law and through periodic updates to the Ogden Tables (the eighth edition of which was published in 2020). Practitioners should consult current Ogden Tables and recent authority when advising on comparable claims.
