The Pursuit of Iranian and English Law in Achieving Full Compensation for Disability Damages: From Diyah to Loss of Earning Capacity

Abstract

The claim for disability damages and the determination of their amount in the legal systems of Iran and England provide a clear picture of two distinct approaches to compensating losses arising from the loss of working ability and diminished capacity. In Iranian law, compensation for disability-related damages is primarily grounded in the rules of civil liability, the fault theory, and Islamic jurisprudential principles such as the prohibition of harm (La Darar) and the doctrine of destruction of property or interests (Itlaf). Disability is regarded as an injury to legitimate interests with an assessable economic value, and the injured party may seek compensation by proving causation and the extent of the reduction in working capacity. Nevertheless, the absence of uniform criteria, inconsistencies in judicial practice, and extensive reliance on forensic medical assessments constitute some of the principal challenges in determining the amount of damages in Iran. The determination of percentages of bodily impairment sometimes substitutes for the actual calculation of future losses, making accurate estimation difficult. In contrast, the English legal system, relying on its long-standing tradition in Tort Law, has adopted a structured approach based on economic calculations. Within this system, the legal personality of the injured party as a “holder of earning capacity” constitutes the central focus of assessment. Courts employ precise models, financial reports, and statistical instruments such as the Ogden Tables to estimate future losses resulting from disability. The criterion of “loss of earning opportunities” is calculated in a quantitative and predictable manner, and the distinction between actual and future losses plays a significant role in determining the final amount of compensation. Consequently, compensation awards in England are relatively predictable, consistent, and aligned with contemporary economic indicators. Comparative analysis demonstrates that although both legal systems emphasize the principle of full compensation for loss, they pursue this objective through different mechanisms. Iranian law relies more heavily on Islamic jurisprudential rules, judicial interpretation, and medical assessments, which may at times result in compensation that does not accurately reflect the injured party’s actual earning circumstances. By contrast, England employs mathematical and data-driven models that contribute to standardization and the reduction of disputes. Furthermore, under English law, compensation encompasses a range of ancillary losses, including rehabilitation needs, assistive equipment, and long-term care costs, whereas in Iran such items are generally recognized either as medical expenses or, at the discretion of the court, in a more limited manner.