AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
Drafting a Schedule of Damages is not simply a mathematical calculation. It requires legal knowledge, careful analysis, attention to evidence, and practical judgement. Courts frequently criticise poorly prepared schedules, particularly where figures are unsupported, exaggerated, or inconsistent with the evidence. This webinar examines the legal rules, relevant case law, and practical guidance surrounding the preparation of a Schedule of Damages. It highlights common mistakes made by practitioners and explains how these errors can undermine a claim or attract judicial criticism. Booking details are available here.
““Ms Crowther took her to the table of hours alleged to have been worked, appended to the Particulars of Claim and pointed out that the number of hours claimed – 206,148 from 1993 to 2016 – would work out at an impossible average of 24.5 hours every single day of the year.”(Samrai & Ors v Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB)
THE WEBINAR
The session also explores the evidential challenges involved in proving damages, especially where documentary evidence is incomplete or unavailable. It will address how practitioners should record client instructions, support claims with evidence, and avoid allegations such as fundamental dishonesty. In addition, the webinar considers how properly drafted schedules assist in costs assessments.”
DO THINGS GO WRONG?
Well… here is a sample…
” I do not find the Schedules to have been drafted systematically or with the care and attention to be expected of a boutique Clin Neg firm specialising in vaginal mesh claims, frankly the six I have seen are all over the place. It follows that I am in considerable doubt as to the times claimed for these Schedules; the times may well have been spent but based upon the above they were not reasonably spent. Much time was thrown away on calculations based on the wrong premises, plus arithmetical errors and other oversights as detailed above.”
HD v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 2118 (SCCO)
A WORK OF FICTION
“The thrust of Mr Fewtrell’s cross examination was that the schedule was a fiction. I have little doubt that is the case.”
F and S -v- TH [2016] EWHC 1605 (QB).
THE FAILINGS OF THE LAWYERS IN DRAFTING THE SCHEDULE
” I consider that the Recorder did fall into error. He conflagrated the failings of the Claimant’s lawyers in their drafting of the schedule, which was drafted wrongly in law and based on irrelevant evidence, with the Claimant’s own evidence which was true and honest in that he asserted he was afraid because he was likely to be deprived of work capacity in Romania either tending livestock or as a carpenter/builder.”
Cojanu v Essex Partnership University NHS Trust [2022] EWHC 197 (QB)
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCHEDULE IS FREQUENTLY OVERLOOKED
“It seems to me that the importance of the schedule of loss is frequently overlooked. This is, or should be, the document that draws together the presentation of the claim. It ought to be presented in an accessible and easy to follow format…With the exception of the claim for loss of earnings the schedule in this case did not serve that purpose.”
Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB)
A SCHEDULE THAT WAS DRAMATICALLY INFLATED AND NEVER SUSTAINABLE
““This schedule patently was dramatically inflated when it was served and it was never sustainable. It did not just change in value and, as I have outlined, was compounded by the continuation of that position when the claimant and her solicitor knew that is was unsustainable, but took no action. That takes it outside the territory of simply a claim which alters in value by reason of a change in the evidence or a recognition that something has gone wrong with an aspect of the case or a decision not to pursue a part of the case. All of those things are things which happen regularly in cases and should not be met with applications of this sort or be the subject of sanction”
Francis -v- Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 2636 (KB)
SCHEDULE LED TO LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM BEING STRUCK OUT
“I remain of the view I indicated to the Claimant. To allow the pleaded claim for loss of earnings to proceed would obstruct the just disposal of the claim. The Claimant has not adduced evidence in support of his calculation, did not provide an explanation for it in his schedule, did not take the opportunity afforded to him by Part 18 questions, could not explain the arithmetic behind it in court and agreed with me that it did not make sense. Its continued presence serves no purpose and obstructs the just disposal of the proceedings. The Defendant is entitled to know that this is not a claim that he has to face and he does not have to devote resources to anticipating how it might be put and how he might meet it.”
Butler v Ward [2025] EWHC 877 (KB)
OVER-COMPLICATED, UNCLEAR AND LACKING IN EVEN THE BASIC INFORMATION NECESSARY
“ I consider that it must have been apparent to Mr Wilson that his Schedule of Loss was over-complicated, unclear, and lacking in even the basic information necessary to identify and support the disputed heads of loss.”
“It is impermissible for damages to be claimed in a schedule of loss where the basis of the claim is not explained or even referred to in the statement of claim. It is at the very least a recipe for muddle and confusion if two parts of the same party’s case are inconsistent; it can lead to unfairness and prejudice to the defendants if the basis for the damages claim being advanced is unclear.”
Wilson & Anor v HB (SWA) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1360
ONE IS TOO LONG – THE OTHER TOO SHORT
“The final updated Schedule extends to 89 pages and is far too long. It contains unwarranted discussion, argument and submission. On the other hand, the Defendant’s Counter-Schedule, dated 15th November 2016, is unduly Spartan, and only addresses the Defendant’s best case”
Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 3276
You must be logged in to post a comment.