What does it mean to suffer loss? Haxton v Philips Electronics

• Published in: Modern law review Vol. 77; no. 6; pp. 994 - 1008
• Main Author: Burin, Achas K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.11.2014; John Wiley & Sons Ltd
• Subjects: Accident law; Appellate courts; Aviation law; Baker v Willoughby AC 467; causation; Common law; Compensation (Law); corrective justice; Court decisions; Court decisions and opinions; Court of appeal; Courts of appeals; Defendants; Demonstrations; Digital electronics; Fatal Accidents Act 1976; Jobling v Associated Dairies AC 794; Jurisprudence; Law reform; Life expectancy; Litigation; Plaintiffs; primary and secondary rights; Property damage; Recoverable damages; Right; Tort law; Tortfeasors; Torts; Values; GREAT BRITAIN
• ISSN: 0026-7961; 1468-2230
• DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12100

In Haxton v Philips Electronics the Court of Appeal considered whether a widow could recover the diminution in value of her dependency claim following the defendant's tortious reduction of her life expectancy. The note outlines the development of the common law, demonstrating that Haxton is novel but not unorthodox, and tests whether Haxton's principles can provide a sound foundation for future cases. Positing three hypothetical scenarios, it argues that the disparity in outcome, rather than indicating a lack of unifying principle, as was suggested in Jobling v Associated Dairies, may be explained by combining Austin's division between primary and secondary rights with Gardner and Stevens' contributions as to how they are protected. Restitutio in integrum requires consideration of the reasons and values underlying the right in question and these are discernible in the jurisprudence. The note also considers whether Haxton could have been decided on the basis that a defendant should not profit from its own wrongdoing.