Woodrup v Nicol [1991] PIQR Q104
QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES
Facts
The claimant was a motor cyclist and was involved in a collision with the defendant motorist. He suffered serious injuries and was cared for by his father.
At first instance, he was awarded damages which included compensation for the cost of the care provided by his father, which was calculated based on his father 's loss of earnings. This amounted to significantly more than the commercial cost of comparable care services. The defendant appealed the award.
Issue
The issue before the House of Lords was whether a defendant should be liable for a claimant’s medical expenses where the latter had chosen to use private health care at a cost significantly above the commercial rate.
Held
The Court of Appeal set out the general approach to determining the reasonableness of private and related medical expenses. In particular, regard should be had to section 2 (4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which provides that where it is shown that the claimant has determined to use private medical care in the future as a matter of choice, it is not open to the defendant to argue that a claim to recover the expense of doing so should be disallowed simply because the same service would have been available from the NHS. On the other hand, if on the balance of probabilities the claimant has not determined to use private facilities, the defendant cannot be held liable to compensate him for an expense which he will not on fact incur. The critical issue is therefore whether the claimant can establish that in the balance of probabilities he will in fact use private medical care.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case note contains several inaccuracies that readers should be aware of.
First, the article misstates the court. Woodrup v Nicol [1993] PIQR Q104 was a decision of the Court of Appeal, not the House of Lords as the article implies in the Issues section.
Second, and more significantly, the article mischaracterises the facts and the legal issue. The case did not concern a father’s loss of earnings as the measure of gratuitous care; rather, it concerned a claimant who sought to recover the cost of future private medical treatment. The Court of Appeal held that the correct approach under section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 is as the article sets out in the Held section — namely that a claimant must establish on the balance of probabilities that they will in fact use private treatment. To that extent, the legal principle stated in the Held section is correct and remains good law.
Third, the citation in the article ([1991] PIQR Q104) is commonly cited as [1993] PIQR Q104; readers should verify the precise citation.
The underlying legal principle derived from section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 remains in force and has not been amended in any material respect. The approach confirmed in Woodrup v Nicol continues to be applied in personal injury litigation when assessing claims for private medical treatment costs. However, the article’s description of the facts (care by a father; loss of earnings measure) appears to conflate this case with separate principles governing gratuitous care, and readers should treat the factual summary with caution.
