The Plaintiffs claim damages for past and future losses arising as a consequence of the negligence of the Minister in failing to remove the Plaintiffs into care at an appropriate time, thereby exposing the Plaintiffs to almost a decade of extreme and sustained sexual, physical and emotional abuse and neglect. The Plaintiffs’ claims are pleaded at a combined total of £238,000,000.00 – believed to be one of the highest value personal injury claims in British legal history.
The trial, which is scheduled to last eight weeks, will hear evidence from expert psychologists and psychiatrists as to the impact of the abuse on the Plaintiffs, as well as expert evidence from a number of disciplines, primarily care, in order to establish the appropriate multiplicands.
In addition, the Defendant seeks to argue that the Royal Court should abandon the principles as to the calculation of the appropriate multipliers as set out by the House of Lords in Wells v. Wells, and the Privy Council (on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Guernsey) in Simon v. Helmot. The Defendant contends that the Royal Court should look to proposed legislative changes in England & Wales and adopt an assumption that a plaintiff will invest damages in a ‘low risk’ portfolio of investments in order to determine the assumed rate of return, as opposed to using the returns on ILGS to determine the assumed rate of return. As a consequence, the Royal Court will hear evidence from experts in actuarial science, economics, accountancy and investment modelling.
David appears with Advocate Jeremy Heywood, Partner, assisted by Alexandra Baker, and others of BCR Law. The team includes David Platt QC, of Crown Office Chambers, described in Chambers & Partners as “one of the best QCs of his generation”.