Expert Witness Journal Issue 63 October 2025 - Flipbook - Page 48
Court provides clarity on the
recoverability of rehabilitation
payments in contribution claims
On appeal from the Cambridge County Court, the High Court has recently handed down
its judgment in R&B Plastering Limited v UK Insurance Limited, which provides legal
clarification in relation to the recoverability of rehabilitation payments in contribution claims.
Kennedys acted on behalf of R&B Plastering Ltd (R&B).
|
HHJ Moloney KC drew comparison with
rehabilitation expenditure funded directly by
claimants from interim payments outside of the 2015
Code, which is a familiar head of loss in personal injury damages. He also made the important point that
rehabilitation payments by insurers should be recoverable as a matter of public policy, otherwise they
might be discouraged from participating in the
“valuable scheme” of the 2015 Code.
Background
Mr Eckford, a tacker, was engaged by R&B as a labour
only subcontractor. R&B was engaged by the main
contractor, Robert Norman Construction Ltd (RNC),
to carry out various works on a house renovation
including plasterboard tacking.
Mr Eckford fell through a hole between the first and
second floor, which had been made on the instructions
of RNC in order to move material between the floors.
R&B settled Mr Eckford’s personal injury claim
pre-litigation and sought a partial contribution from
RNC’s insurer.
Mrs Justice Foster accepted R&B’s submissions, and
agreed with HHJ Moloney KC that a contribution
under the 1978 Act is not required to be a proportion
of “damages” and includes other items such as costs
and rehabilitation payments.
RNC’s insurer denied liability and R&B therefore
commenced contribution proceedings for a partrecovery of damages and costs paid to Mr Eckford,
NHS charges, and rehabilitation payments.
He also referenced the recent Court of Appeal
judgment in Hadley v Przybylo [2024] EWCA Civ 250
which confirmed that the costs of a claimant’s solicitor
managing rehabilitation were recoverable in the
litigation.
The case proceeded to a two day trial before HHJ
Patrick Moloney KC sitting at Cambridge County
Court on 15 May 2023 with judgment handed down
on the 12 July 2023. The judge found that RNC was
50% liable, because it participated in the joint decision
to cut a hole between floors for moving materials but,
following delivery of such materials, failed to reinstate
the floor or to prevent workers including Mr Eckford
from accessing the room. The contribution claim
therefore succeeded.
Comment
The judgment provides another factual example of a
sub-contractor sharing liability with a main contractor
following a construction site accident, where the main
contractor had overall responsibilities for site safety
and supervising sub-contractors.
It also provides important legal confirmation of the
recoverability of rehabilitation payments in contribution claims which, as the High Court highlighted, supports the valuable aims of the Rehabilitation Code
2015 by removing a potential technical barrier to
funding.
The appeal
RNC’s insurer failed in its appeal against the judge’s
findings in relation to liability.
It also appealed in relation to the recoverability of
certain rehabilitation payments made by R&B’s insurer to Mr Eckford under the Rehabilitation Code
2015. It argued that technically speaking they were
not “damages” within the meaning of the Civil
Liability Contribution Act 1978.
Authors
Mark Burton
Partner
London
The judgment of the lower court was that the 1978
Act is not limited to recovery of damages but, by
operation of section 2, additionally extends to any
amount “such as may be found to be just and
equitable having regard to the extent of that person’s
responsibility for the damage in question” including
for example costs.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Stephanie Rogerson
Senior Associate (non-Solicitor)
London
https://kennedyslaw.com
46
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
