The High Court’s decision in ABC & Anor v XYZ demonstrates how robustly the courts will assess quantum notwithstanding the complete absence of any engagement from the defendant. It is also significant for its award to a claimant who witnessed abuse. 

The claim arose from a prolonged period of domestic abuse inflicted by the defendant on his former partner and their child, including violence, coercive and controlling behaviour, harassment and an attempted kidnapping. Liability was established by default after the defendant failed to engage at any stage of proceedings. The trial therefore proceeded solely as an assessment of damages. The court ultimately awarded £370,280 to the mother and £97,842 to the child, reflecting significant psychiatric injury, loss of earnings and future loss.

The court undertook a detailed and rigorous quantum exercise without any input from the defendant. This was not a superficial assessment. The judge interrogated the evidence, applied the Judicial College Guidelines, considered comparable authorities and rejected elements of the claim that were not properly evidenced. In doing so, the court reinforced that default judgment does not reduce the standard of scrutiny applied to quantum but equally, the absence of cross-examination will not prevent substantial damages being awarded where the claimant’s case is credible.

The approach to psychiatric injury is significant. The court categorised the claimant’s conditions of PTSD, OCD and associated symptoms within the most serious bracket of abuse-related harm, awarding £125,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. This reflects a clear recognition that long-term trauma, particularly arising from sustained abuse, can justify high-value general damages in line with the upper end of the Guidelines. It is a strong example of how properly evidenced psychiatric claims can be positioned at the top of the valuation spectrum.

Equally important is the court’s treatment of loss of earnings. Despite a relatively modest and incomplete employment history, the judge accepted that, but for the abuse, the claimant would have returned to work and maintained a steady earning trajectory. On that basis, the court awarded significant past loss and adopted a Smith v Manchester approach to future disadvantage. Without challenge, assumptions about what the claimant would have earned “but for” the abusive acts were accepted as reasonable. 

The judgment also highlights the court’s willingness to compensate the child for witnessing violence by his father on his mother and for an attempted kidnap by his father. The award to the child, while more modest, reflects recognition of psychiatric injury caused by both exposure to violence and the single traumatic kidnapping event.

The judgment also clarifies that CRU liability is the defendant’s liability and that recoupment of a CICA award only arises after the defendant has paid the claimant’s damages in full.

ABC v XYZ is a cautionary example for defendants who choose not to engage in a legal process.