The High Court heard a fatal accident claim over the death of a woman who cared for her two adult sons with learning disabilities, with the dispute narrowed to damages for lost "services dependency".
Key facts
- Who: Families who lose a relative who provided unpaid care and household support, and those bringing or defending fatal accident claims.
- From: Judgment of 22 May 2026
- Source: Graham Burgess v Dominik Sikorski & Anor [2026] EWHC 1245 (KB)
Background
The High Court (King's Bench Division) gave judgment on 22 May 2026 in Graham Burgess v Dominik Sikorski & Anor [2026] EWHC 1245 (KB), before Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC. The trial took place on 20, 21 and 23 April 2026.
Michelle Griffiths worked as a carer and, with her husband Ian, provided care and support for their two adult sons, Aaron and Matthew. Both have learning disabilities, and Aaron also has epilepsy. On 11 March 2021, when she was 53, she was crossing the road when a vehicle reversing up a residential cul-de-sac inadvertently struck her. The driver was an employee of Hertsmere Borough Council. She sustained fatal injuries.
Her brother, Graham Burgess, brought the claim on behalf of her estate and her dependants, under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.
The question
Liability was accepted, subject to an agreed 30% reduction for contributory negligence, which the court approved. Damages under the 1934 Act and most damages under the 1976 Act were agreed.
What remained was the award for "services dependency": the value of the services Michelle would have provided to her dependants. The judge listed six issues:
- the award for past services dependency;
- how that award should be apportioned;
- the award for future services dependency;
- how that award should be apportioned;
- whether professional deputyship fees can be recovered as damages under the 1976 Act; and
- if so, the amount for each son.
The legal approach
Section 3 of the 1976 Act allows damages "proportioned to the injury resulting from the death to the dependants". The judge noted that an assessment under section 3 is sometimes called a "jury question", which does not mean a cursory or arbitrary approach. It reflects that there is a range of reasonable approaches and mathematical precision cannot be obtained. The court must work out what services the deceased would have provided, how they could reasonably be replaced and at what cost.
The evidence
The judge heard from Ian and Graham, and had an unchallenged statement from Graham's wife. He also relied on mental capacity assessments finding that neither son has capacity to manage his property and financial affairs, and on medical records.
He found that the sons do a great deal together, such as making simple meals and going out most days, but would need help to go further afield. Michelle managed the household finances, organised the weekend clean and celebrations, cooked the main meal, filled in benefits forms, prepared Aaron's medication and took the sons to medical appointments. Since her death, Ian has taken the lead on the weekly clean and shop, manages Aaron's medication and appointments, and has taken over Christmas. He has sometimes used up his annual leave. Graham assists with paperwork, including the sons' benefits correspondence.
What this means for families in a similar position
- Loss of unpaid care can be valued as a financial loss to dependants, based on the services the person provided and the cost of replacing them.
- Evidence of how the household worked before and after the death, from family members and documents such as capacity assessments and medical records, featured in this trial.
- Whether professional deputyship fees can be recovered as damages under the 1976 Act was one of the issues the court had to decide.
Sources
- Graham Burgess v Dominik Sikorski & Anor [2026] EWHC 1245 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 22 May 2026