Co-operative Group Ltd v Pritchard [2011] E.W.C.A. Civ 329

Pritchard had a dispute with the manager of the store where she worked. During a confrontation, the manager held her arms and a struggle followed. She alleged that the incident caused serious psychiatric consequences and sued the employer for the manager's assault and battery. The litigation considered the extent of those consequences as well as whether her own conduct could reduce damages for contributory negligence. The appeal required the court to separate that proposed statutory defence from the ordinary questions of causation and the amount of loss attributable to the assault.

Could damages for assault and battery be reduced for contributory negligence, and what psychiatric loss was actually attributable to the incident?

The Court of Appeal held that contributory negligence was not available to reduce damages for assault and battery under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. The statute did not create that defence where the relevant intentional torts had not admitted it at common law.

That conclusion did not settle the amount recoverable. The claimant still had to establish the loss caused by the wrongful conduct. The court criticised the treatment of the medical evidence concerning whether the incident caused or accelerated the psychiatric condition and reduced the damages accordingly. A reduction based on the causal extent of injury is analytically different from apportioning responsibility through contributory negligence.

Contributory negligence is not a defence to assault and battery under the 1945 Act. A claimant must nevertheless establish what loss the tort caused, and damages may be limited where the evidence shows acceleration of a condition rather than responsibility for its entire course.

Pritchard belongs primarily in tort, despite the criminal terminology of assault and battery. It illustrates why a failed defence does not automatically validate every head or period of loss. The court separated contributory negligence from medical causation and assessment of damages. In an exam answer, analyse the intentional tort first, then the available defences and the proven consequences, rather than treating the claimant's behaviour as a general reason to reduce compensation.