ABC & Anor v XYZ: High Court awards £468,000 in domestic abuse damages to mother and son

The King's Bench Division has assessed damages totalling £468,122 in favour of two claimants — a mother (C1) and her minor son (C2) — following a prolonged campaign of domestic abuse by the defendant spanning more than a decade. Mr Justice Ritchie handed down judgement on 15 April 2026 in proceedings that ran without any participation from the defendant, who failed to serve a defence, attend trial, or engage with the court at any stage.

Default judgement had been entered in May 2024 after the defendant failed to acknowledge service. The hearing before Ritchie J concerned quantum only.

C1 suffered abuse from 2012, encompassing repeated physical assaults, sexual violence, coercive control, stalking, burglary and criminal damage. The defendant was subject to a restraining order from 2015 and a lifelong restraining order from 2020, both of which he repeatedly breached. C2 was exposed to domestic violence throughout his childhood and was the subject of an attempted kidnapping in November 2019, when the defendant forced entry into C1's home, assaulted her, and fled with C2 before being stopped by members of the public.

The defendant has a history of drug and alcohol misuse, was imprisoned on multiple occasions, and continued to harass the claimants via third parties following his most recent release in September 2024.

General damages

Ritchie J placed C1's psychiatric injuries within Judicial College Guidelines category 4(C) — physical and sexual abuse — at the severe grade (updated range £116,000–£194,000), having found that the PTSD and OCD she developed were solely attributable to the abuse and had persisted for over 14 years. He awarded £125,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, noting the absence of a consultant psychiatrist's report but accepting the clinical psychologist's evidence that symptoms would not fully resolve even after recommended trauma-focused therapy.

For C2, whose injuries included PTSD, depression, educational disruption, and lasting vulnerability arising from the attempted kidnapping, the judge considered the appropriate category to be moderate (JCG 4(C)(c)), and made an award of £30,000. The absence of a long-term psychiatric prognosis — the expert having declined to provide one before treatment was completed — was held against the claimants on the burden of proof.

Loss of earnings

C1's past loss of earnings was awarded in full at £146,592, calculated on the basis that she would have returned to full-time employment after maternity leave in 2014. The court accepted evidence that her inability to work since that date was caused entirely by her psychiatric conditions and justified fear of the defendant.

Future loss of earnings for C1 was assessed by way of a Smith v Manchester award of £64,560, representing three years' net loss. The judge declined to apply a multiplier/multiplicand approach, finding the long-term trajectory too speculative given residual symptoms and the ongoing risk posed by the defendant, which was expected to diminish as C2 approaches adulthood.

C2's future loss of earnings was similarly addressed on a Smith v Manchester basis at £50,000, approximately two years' net loss at the lowest male earnings quartile, the court finding a traditional multiplicand approach inappropriate given the child's age and uncertain prognosis.

CICA and CRU

Two procedural points of broader significance arose. On CRU, the court confirmed — following Crooks v Hendricks Lovell Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 8 — that the obligation to obtain a certificate and repay recoverable benefits rests solely with the compensator. No deduction was made from C1's damages, though the court suggested the claimant's solicitors write to the CRU to notify them of the judgement.

On the CICA award of £26,000 previously made to C1, Ritchie J held that paragraph 110 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 permits the CICA to recoup sums overlapping with the civil award, but only upon actual payment by the defendant. The court found no caselaw on the precise interaction between paragraphs 85 and 110 and proceeded on a precautionary basis, advising that the CICA be notified once the judgement is enforced.

Awards

C1 was awarded £370,280 in total. C2 was awarded £97,842. The defendant's liability for CRU repayment remains separate.