Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Thompson v Arnold" in English language version.
Langstaff J observed that a claim for income dependency brought on behalf of the dependants after death under the Fatal Accident Act is "always likely to be higher than a claim for loss of income during the "lost years".
Read v The Great Eastern Railway Company (1868) LR 3 QB 555
However, where the deceased had pursued a claim for a wrongful act that resulted in his death to judgment or settled a claim before his death, then his dependants had no cause of action under the 1976 Act, as the dependants would already have received compensation for the wrongful act resulting in the deceased's death: see Thompson v Arnold [2007] EHHC 1875 (QB), [2008] PIQR P1.
Note, however, that one concern with using the lost years claim as a means of providing for dependants after the claimant's death - that the claimant might spend the lost years award during his own shortened life so that there is nothing left for dependants at his death - can be avoided by use of a periodical payment order (...)
Death as a Consequence of Injuries for which Damages already awarded.
...Mrs Thompson first obtained judgment in default of a defence being lodged and then proceeded to settle her action. A consent order to that effect was made on 20 January 2000. This order provided, inter alia, as follows: "The claimant accepts the sum of £120,000 in full and final satisfaction of her claim."
The duties of English solicitors regarding obligations to opponents were articulated in Thames Trains Ltd v Adams [2006] EWHC 3291 (QB), approved in Thompson v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875 (QB).
In Thompson, the claimant's solicitor had submitted a deliberately over-inflated claim.
Thompson and others v Arnold (2007) EWHC 1875 (QB)... ...confirmed that where a claimant obtained a settlement or judgment for their personal injury claim and then died as a result of that same injury or illness, their dependants were precluded from bringing a fatal accident claim. To attempt to do so would be an abuse of process.
...Langstaff J then went on to note that the alternative construction of FAA 1976 contended for by counsel for the dependants would have the effect that death would be the circumstance which brought the right of action under FAA 1976 into play which he stated would give rise to the prospect of double recovery...
The court considered the interaction of the 1934 and 1976 Acts.
Each situation does, however, turn on its own facts. A mistake induced by conduct of the defendant would be viewed differently.
The mistake was thus unilateral, not mutual. He pointed out that in some circumstances one party to a contract who realised that the other party had made a mistake might not be able to take advantage of it. The court would prevent it.
