Lindal v. Lindal

Euler888Euler888
in Dav.NonPec

Two questions
1. In page 5, the third paragraph says "the quantum of the ward itself should not be increased to reflect the impact of inflation...". What is Mr Justice Dickson trying to say here?
2. In Lindal v. Lindal, was the plaintiff awarded $100k indexed for inflation to 1978? Or... all SUBSEQUENT ruling started to have the inflation clause

Comments

  • Staff-T1Staff-T1
    1. I'm not a lawyer so it's just my interpretation: The amount should basically be 100K in 1978 dollars - you shouldn't increase the dollar amount in 1978 dollars because inflation has increased.
    2. Plaintiff was offered 100K in 1978 dollars, indexed for inflation at the date of settlement (Not mentioned in text). 100K*(1+i)^(settlement date - 1978) All subsequent awards should have an inflation clause
Sign In or Register to comment.