we need to talk about katie · about katie 23 november 2012 [email protected] 9 st john street,...
TRANSCRIPT
PERSONAL INJURY
We Need To Talk About Katie
23 November 2012
[email protected] St John Street, Manchester, M3 4DNDX Address: 14326 MANCHESTER 3Tel: 0161 955 9000
ABSTRACTTh isarticleconsiderstheimpactofKatie Ward – v – Allies and Morrison Architects[2012]EWCACiv1287onthelitigationlandscaperegardinglossofearningsawardsbyreasonofmoderateorsubtleinjuries.
ByMichaelLemmyandMatthewSnarr
2
PERSONAL INJURY
Introduction
1. InWard v Allies and Morrison Architects[2012]EWCACiv1287theCourtofAppealadjudicatedontheappropriatenessofmakingaBlamireawardasopposedtoadoptingaconventionalOgden61multiplicand/multipliercalculationtocompensatefuturelossofearningsandonwhetherthedeterminationofwhetheraninjuredpartyisdisabledisconclusiveinadoptingtheOgden6multiplicand/multiplierapproach.
A Short History
2. UponthepublicationofthefirsteditionoftheOgdenTablesin1984itbecamepossibleforCourtsandpractitionerstoadoptamoreaccurateapproachtopredictingfuturepecuniarylosses,includingfuturelossofearnings.TheCivilEvidenceAct1995,Section10,makestheOgdenTablesadmissibleperseinevidence.
3. TheOgdenTableswereapprovedbytheHouseofLordsinWells v Wells[1999]AC945perLordLloydatp379whostated,
“I do not suggest that judges should be a slave to the tables. There may well be special factors in particular cases. But the tables should now be regarded as a starting point rather than a check. A judge should be slow to depart from the relevant actuarial multiplier on impressionistic grounds or be referenced to “a spread of comparable cases, especially when the multipliers were fixed before actuarial tables were widely used.”
4. Personalinjurypractitionerswillbefamiliarwiththeconceptofdiscountingthemultipliersintables3to14toreflectcontingenciesotherthanmortalitiesundertheauspicesofwhatusedtobetermedgenerallabourmarketforces.Theartofdiscountingbecameacrudebutsomewhatpredictableexercise,perhapsimpreciseorunjustfromtheclaimant’sperceptive,itcarriedadegreeofcertaintyamongstpractitionersandtheCourt.
5. ResearchcarriedoutbyDrVictoriaWassatCardiffUniversityandZoltanButt,RichardVerrallandStephenHabbermanatCityUniversitydemonstratedthatthekeyissuesaffectingaperson’sfutureworkinglifearedependenton:
a) Gender;
b) Disabilitystatus;
3
PERSONAL INJURY
c) Educationalattainment;
d) Employmentstatus.
6. TheOgden6TableswerepublishedinMay2007andincorporatedTablesA-Dtoprovideforseparateadjustmentstobemadeforindividualemploymentstatus,educationalandvocationalqualificationsanddisability.
7. AccordingtotheIntroductiontothe7thEditionoftheOgdenTables,theresearchbyVictoriaWassandhercolleaguesdemonstratesthatpeoplewithoutdisabilitiesspendmoretimeoutofemploymentthanearlierresearchsuggested.Italsodemonstratesthatfactorssuchasoccupation,geography,industrialsectorandlevelofeconomicactivityarelessimportantthanhadpreviouslybeenconsidered.
8. ThenewapproachtocalculatingfuturelossofearningsendorsedinOgden6(nowOgden7)heraldedasignificantincreaseinvaluationandawardsofclaimant’sfuturelossofearningsclaims.ArguablyitalsobeganthedemiseofSmith v Manchesterawards.Anexampleoftheincreasedlevelofcompensationisshownbelow:
Example A: Pre-Ogden 6
A35yearoldman,livingintheNorthWest,suffersanamputationtohisrightdominantlegcausinghimtobeunabletocontinuehisworkasalumberjackinwhichheearned£20,000netperannum.Henowworksasapart-timecarparkattendantearning£10,000perannum.
Differencebetweenpreandpost-accidentearnings=£10,000p.a.
OgdenTable9(multiplierforlossofearningstopensionage65(males))atadiscountrateof2.5%fora35yearoldmaleis20.57.
Thediscountfactorformediumeconomicactivityforamanaged35is0.96.Thatdiscountfactorisreducedby0.02toreflecttheriskynatureoftheClaimant’semploymentandby0.02toreflecthisgeographicallocationgivingadiscountfactorof0.92.
0.92×20.57×£10,000=£189,244.
4
PERSONAL INJURY
Example B: Post Ogden 6 calculation
(i) butforearnings=£20,000perannum(multiplicand×18.33[0.89–TableA×20.6OgdenTable9])=£366,600;
(ii) asisearnings=£10,000perannum(multiplicand×8.03[.38–TableB×20.60OgdenTable9])=£80,300;
(iii) £366,600–£80,300=£286,300.
9. Moreinterestingly,apartfromtheincreaseinawardsforclassicfuturelossofearningscalculations,claimants’representativesbegantoadoptanOgden6/7calculationinrespectofwhathadpreviouslybeenSmith v Manchestertypeclaimsonthebasisthattheactuarialfiguresanddiscountsincorporatedthelikelihoodthataclaimant,disabledbytheirinjury,waslikelytospendmoretimeoutofworkthananon-disabledpersonandaccordinglythismethodofcalculationwasmoreaccuratethanthebroadbrushapproachofaSmith v Manchesteraward.
10. Theeffectofthisapproachistoincreasecompensationforfuturelossofearningsawardswhereclaimantshavesufferedseriousinjurybuthavereturnedtowork.Anexampleofsuchcaseissetoutbelow:
Example C: Nil Ongoing Loss
Anemployedchauffeuraged25suffersanaccidentatworkwhenafellowemployeeshutsacardooronhishandresultinginacrushinjurytohisleft,non-dominanthand,withacontinuingminortomoderatelackofgripstrength.Theinjurydoesnotpreventtheclaimantfromcarryingoutanyofhisworkrelatedactivitiesasachauffeur;hedrivesanautomaticvehicleandcanhandlemostbaggage.Hewould,however,haveobviousdifficultieswithamanualgearboxorindeedanyheavymanualemployment.TechnicallytheclaimantmayfallwithinthedefinitionofdisabledwithinthemeaningoftheEqualityAct2010.Pre-Ogden6suchaclaimantwouldprobablyhavecontendedforaSmith v Manchesterawardintheregionofapproximatelyoneortwoyears.Post-Ogden6aclaimantwouldnowbelikelytopleadhisclaimasfollows:–
(i) ‘butfor’theaccidenttheclaimantwouldhaveearned£20,000perannum×18.33[0.89–TableA×20.66–OgdenTable9]=£366,600;
(ii) pursuanttoOgden6theclaimantwillnowearn£20,000perannum×8.03[0.39–TableB×20.60–OgdenTable9]=£160,600;
5
PERSONAL INJURY
(iii) totalequals£366,600–£160,600=£206,600;
(iv) ifsuchanapproachwereacceptedbytheCourt,itislikelythattheCourtwouldadjustthemultipliersproposedabove.
11. ThepositionthereforeisthatmanypractitionersarguethattheOgden6Tablesarethestartingpointforclaimantsvaluingclaimsofthisnature.
The Rise and Demise of Handicap on the Open Labour Market Awards
12. TraditionallythescenarioinwhichaninjuredclaimantremainsinworkhasbeencompensatedbytheprovisionofaSmithandManchesteraward.AlthoughitwasnotthefirstofitskindSmith v Manchester Corporation[1974]17K.I.R.1CAbecametheguidelineauthorityfortheprovisionofanawardtocompensatethelossofearningcapacityrepresentedbythephysicalhandicapproducedbytheinjuryasopposedtoanactuallossofearnings.
13. TwopreconditionsmustbesatisfiedinorderforaSmith v Manchesterawardtobemade:
(i) Theremustbea“substantial”or“real”riskthataclaimantwilllosehispresentjobatsomepointbeforetheestimatedendofhisworkinglife;
(ii) Ifthereissucharisk,theCourtmustassessandquantifythepresentvalueoftheriskofthefinancialdamagewhichtheclaimantwillsufferifthatriskmaterialises,havingregardtothedegreeoftherisk,thetimewhenitmaymaterialiseandthefactors,bothfavourableandunfavourable,whichinaparticularcasewill,ormay,affecttheclaimant’schancesofgettingajobatall,oranequallywellpaidjob2.
14. Oncethesetwopreconditionsaresatisfied,theCourtmustcalculatethepresentvalueofthatfutureloss.Thisisnormallydonebyreferencetotheclaimant’sannualnetincome.However,theapproachofSmithandManchesterawardshasledtosomecriticismthattheprocessremainsquitearbitraryandthatCourtstendtoleantotheungeneroussideintheirawards.3
15. Theintroductionofthenewmethodofcalculatingfuturelossofearningsinthe6thEditionoftheOgdenTableswasaccompaniedbyviewsexpressedbypractitionersandacademicsthatthenewmethodwouldmakeSmith v Manchesterawardsmainlyredundant.4ThepremisesforthisapproachisthattheOgden6Tablesprovidedwithinthemstatisticalcalculationsdesignedtoreflecttheriskthatadisabledworkingornon-workingindividualwouldcomeontotheopenlabourmarket.
6
PERSONAL INJURY
16. Inpractice,althoughslowly,theCourtshavetendedtoleantowardsadoptingamultiplier/multiplicandapproachusingtheOgden6TablesasagainstmakingaSmith v Manchesteraward.InSharma v Noon Products Limited[2011]QBDanagencyworkersufferedacrushinginjurytohisrightindexfingerresultinginthefingerbeingconsiderablyshorter,painandlimiteddexterity.Atthetimeoftrialtheclaimantwasindirectemployment.Hehadbeenemployedfor3years.Thedefendantcontendedfora6monthsSmith v Manchesterawardinthesumof£7,500,theclaimantcontendedforalifelossof£150,000.TheCourtheldthattheclaimant’sresidualdisabilitymeantthathisprospectsofemploymentandpromotionwereseverelylimited.Thoseriskswereaccountedforinthe6thEditionoftheOgdenTablesandadoptedamultiplierapproach.Importantly,theCourtupliftedthedisabledmultiplierdiscountfigurefromTableBfrom0.4to0.6,resultinginafuturelossofearningsof£92,000.
17. InEvans v Virgin Atlantic Airways[2011]EWHC1805(QB)HisHonourJudgeMcKennaadoptedanOgden6calculationinacaseinvolvingabeautytherapistwhohadsufferedaworkrelatedupperlimbdisorderasaconsequenceofheremploymentbuthadbeenredeployedintoaclericalpositionatalowersalary.TheCourtassessedfuturelossofearningsonthebasisthattheclaimantwouldretraintoworkatalowerprofessionallevelthanafulltherapist.5
Blamire – the magic bullet
18. Blamireawardsaregenerallyseenastheexception.Theycanbeappropriateincaseswherethereissomesignificantuncertaintyastotheprojectedearningspathoftheclaimant.InvariablytheyinvolvetheCourtawardingalumpsumofdamagesonabroadbrushapproachbasis.TheCourtsmayadoptamultiplier/multiplicandapproachinitiallyandthenreviewthatsteppingbackhavingregardtotherisksanduncertaintiesontheevidence.
19. ThedistinctionbetweenawardsmadeunderSmith v Manchester CorporationandBlamire v South Cumbria Health HA[1993]PIQRQ1arethatthelattermaybeappropriatewheretheuncertaintiesofacasemadebythemultiplier/multiplicandareunworkable,whereasaSmith v Manchesterawardseekstocompensateaclaimforthepossibilitythatatsomepointinfuturehe/shewilllosetheirjobandsufferahandicaponthelabourmarket.Theycompensatedifferentheadsofloss.Itispossibletohaveacasewhereajudgemakesanawardofboth.
20. InBullock v Atlas Ward Structures Limited[2008]EWCACiv194aclaimantdevelopeddermatitisasaconsequenceofhisworkasapaintsprayerrequiringhimtoceaseworkinginthatprofession.Heclaimedlossofearningsonamultiplier/multiplicandbasisfortheshortfallofapproximately£5,000perannumashewasnowworkingasawindowcleaner.InadditionheclaimedaSmith v Manchesteraward.ThedefendantallegedthatthereweresignificantuncertaintiesandadvocatedaBlamireapproach.Thejudgeagreedandawarded£50,000loss
7
PERSONAL INJURY
ofearningsplusa1yearSmithandManchester.Bothsidesappealed.OnappealtheCourtofAppealsubstitutedafigureof£90,000fortheBlamireawardandtheSmithandManchesterawardwasnotinterferedwith.KeenLJsaid:
“Merely because there are uncertainties about the future does not of itself justify departure from that well established method. Judges should be slow to resort to the broad brush Blamire approach, unless they really have no alternative.”
21. InWoodward v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust[2012]EWHC2167(QB)HHJStuartBakerfoundthattherewere“fartoomanyimponderables”totaketheconventionalapproachandfoundinsteadthataBlamireawardwasappropriate.
Judicial Tinkering
22. However,evenundertheOgden6regimetheCourt’sapproachhasnotalwaysledtoconsistentcompensationforclaimants.6FocussingonthreecasesitispossibletoshowhowtheCourtshaveadoptedinconsistentapproaches:
(i) Conner v BradmanEWHC2789[2007];
(ii) Hunter v MODNIQB43[2007];
(iii) Lee-Smith v EvansEWHC134[Q.B.][2008].
Ineachofthesecasestheclaimantsworkedinmanualemploymentandsufferedinjuriestotheirlegswithsubsequentimpairmenttomobility.VictoriaWassanalysedtheCourt’sapproachtoreductionfactors(employmentrisksandaveragesforbroadlydefinedgroupsofworkingageindividuals)andfoundasfollows:
(i) Connor:thereductionfactorwasreducedfrom40%to20%;
(ii) Hunter:thereductionfactorwasreducedfrom78%to33%;
(iii) Lee-Smith:thereductionfactorwasreducedfrom41%to35%.
23. OverallVictoriaWass’scriticismoftheCourt’sapproachwasthatthereductionfactorsprovidedforinTablesA-Dalreadyincludedanyallowancesforeffectsofseverity,impairmentandtransferabilityofskillswhichwereassociatedwithgainingemployment.Inshort,it
8
PERSONAL INJURY
appearsthatWasswascautioninglawyersagainsttinkeringtoomuchwiththereductionfactors.
24. Theresultanteffecthasmeantithasbecomemoredifficulttovaluecertaintypesofclaimsbutespeciallythoseinvolvinganongoingpartiallossofearnings(whereadifferent,lowermultiplierisappliedtotheresidualearningcapacity)orwheretheclaimanthasremainedinemploymentandappearstosuffernoactuallossofearnings.
Update: Ward v Allies and Morrisons Architects
25. Theclaimantwasamodelmakerwithafirstclassdegree.Shesufferedaninjurywhilstonashorttermplacementinwhichtheindexfingerofherleft(non-dominant)handwascutoffandhermiddlefingerdislocated.Herindexfingerwasre-attachedandshemadeaconsiderablerecovery.Theclaimant’scasewasthatshewouldnownolongerbeabletoworkasamodelmakerintheatresorintheperformingarts.However,theCourtwasnotsatisfiedthattheclaimantwouldnotbeabletoobtainmodelmakingworkforarchitectsatasimilarlevelofremunerationandfoundthatshewas“notthemostreliableofhistorians”.
26. Theunchallengedmedicalevidencewasthatshesufferedhypersensitivityandthattheindexfingerwaslargelycosmeticbutthattherestofthehandwasentirelynormalwithnormalgripstrength,i.e.shehadlostsomeofherformerdexteritybutnotmuch.
27. TheCourtwasnotsatisfiedthattheclaimantwouldbeunabletocarryoutherambitionofbeingamodelmakerintheperformingarts.Hermajorproblemhadbeenthefactthatshehadbeenoutofcirculationforaperiodof4yearsinanindustrywhichisdifficulttogetstartedinunlessdoorswereopenedorcontractsengaged.Thejudgeconcludedthattheclaimantcouldadvanceinanotherrewardingcareerasanarchitecturalmodelmakerwhichwouldproveequallyrewardingtoherdesiredcareerofbeingamodelmakerintheperformingarts.Accordingly,hemadeaBlamireawardinthesumof£30,000.
28. Anumberofargumentswereadvancedonappealbutthetwokeyissueswere:
(i) whenisitappropriatetouseaBlamireapproachasopposedtoOgden6?
(ii) isdisabilitythedeterminingfactorindecidingtousetheOgden6Tables?
29. AsregardstheBlamireissue,theCourthadheardevidencefromtheclaimant,herformertutoratUniversityandaseniorassociateatthedefendant’sfirm.Hewasnotsatisfiedthathe
9
PERSONAL INJURY
hadsufficientevidenceastowhattheappellanthadlostorwhatshewaslikelytoearninthefuturewithherinjuries.
30. TheclaimantarguedonappealthatthejudgehaderredinlawbyfailingtoadoptanOgdenmultiplicand/multiplierapproach.TheCourtofAppeal,atparagraph25,agreedwiththetrialjudge’sviewthattheevidencewasuncertainonthefollowingissues:
(i) whethertheappellantwouldhavesucceededinbecomingatheatricalmodelmaker;
(ii) whethershewouldremaininthatpositionthroughoutherworkingcareer;
(iii) whatlevelofremunerationshewouldhaveachievedinthatoccupation;
(iv) whetherthephysicalorpsychiatricrecoveryoftheappellantwassuchthatshecoulddoeitherthejobofthetheatricalmodelmakerorotherjobsasamodelmakeraftertheaccident;
(v) whethertherewaslikelytobeanydifferenceinearningsbetweenthetwojobroles.
31. TheCourtofAppealheldinthosecircumstancesthejudgewas“driven”toadoptingaBlamireapproach.
32. TheclaimantarguedonappealthatitwasnecessarytodeterminewhethershewasregardedasdisabledbeforeconcludingwhethertheOgden6Tablesweretobeusedornot.TheCourtofAppealrejectedthisargumentholdingthatthedeterminationastowhethertheclaimantwasdisabledwasnotthedeterminingfactorintheapplicationoftheOgden6Table.Itwasnotanautomatictrigger.Itquotedparagraph14oftheIntroductionoftheOgdenTableswhichstatesthat“therewouldbesituationswhereitwillbeappropriatetousethefactorssetoutinSectionBTablestocalculateaclaimant’sresidualearningcapacityonamultiplier/multiplicandbasis.However,inmanycasesitwouldbeappropriatetoincreaseorreducethediscountinthetablestotakeaccountofthenatureoftheparticularclaimant’sdisabilities.TherewillalsobesomecaseswheretheSmith v Manchester CorporationorBlamireapproachremainsapplicable.Theremaystillbecaseswhereaprecisemathematicalapproachisinapplicable.”
33. LordJusticeAikensheldthatgiventhiscommentarythemerefactthataclaimantcouldestablishthattheyweredisableddidnotautomaticallyleadtotheapplicationofanOgden6approach.Moreover,inhisview,hewouldnothaveconsideredtheclaimanttobedisabledwithinthemeaningoftheIntroductionprovidedtotheOgdenTablesatparagraph35whichstates:
10
PERSONAL INJURY
“The definition of employed/not employed, disabled/not disabled and educational attainment used in this analysis and which should be used for determining which factors to apply to the multipliers to allow for contingencies other than mortality are as follows:
......
Disabled: a person is to be classified as disabled if all three of the following conditions in relation to the ill-health or disability are met:
— has either a progressive illness or an illness which has lasted or is expected to last for over a year;
— satisfies the Disability Discrimination Act’s definition that the impact of disability substantially limits the person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities;
and
— their condition affects either the kind or the amount of paid work they can do.
Not Disabled:
— all others.”
Analysis of Ward v Allies: Learning the Lessons
Lesson 1
34. ThefirstlessontobelearnedfromthecaseofWardistheimportanceofprovidingtotheCourtdetailedandpersuasiveevidenceuponwhichthecontentionsastolossofearningsarebased.Itcanbedifficultforclaimantstoestablishacareerlossofearningsclaim,especiallywhentheyareyoung,buttheuseofcomparatorevidence,employmentconsultantsandwitnessevidencefromtheprofessionitselfoughttobeprovidedtotheCourtiftheclaimantisgoingtomountaseriousargumentastothoselosses.
Lesson 2
11
PERSONAL INJURY
35. Indeterminingwhethertheclaimantisdisabledornotitisalwaysimportanttoaskthisofthemedicalexpert.ItdoesnotappearthatthatwasspecificallydoneinMrsWard’scase.
36. ThetestisnowassetoutundertheEqualityAct2010,thisisimportantbecausetheformerGovernmentdecidedtodroptherequirementintheDisabilityDiscriminationAct1995that,foranimpairmenttobeconsideredtoaffectaperson’sabilitytocarryoutnormalday-to-dayactivities,itmustaffectoneormorespecified“capacities”–namelymobility;manualdexterity;physicalcoordination;continence;abilitytolift,carryorotherwisemoveeverydayobjects;speech;hearingoreyesight;memoryorabilitytoconcentrate;learnorunderstand;orperceptionoftheriskofphysicaldanger(para4(1),Schedule1oftheDisabilityDiscriminationAct).IntheGovernment’sviewthislist“servedlittleornopurposeinhelpingtoestablishwhethersomeoneisdisabledintheeyesofthelaw,andwasanunnecessaryextrabarriertodisabledpeopleintakingcasesincourtsandtribunals”(para11.53,“TheEqualityBill–GovernmentResponsetoConsultation”,July2008(Cm7454)).
37. AccordingtotheexplanatoryacttotheEqualityAct2010“thischangewillmakeiteasierforsomepeopletodemonstratethattheymeetthedefinitionofadisabledperson.Itwillassistthosewhocurrentlyfinditdifficulttoshowthattheirimpairmentadverselyaffectstheirabilitytocarryoutanormalday-to-dayactivitywhichinvolvesoneofthesecapacities”(para682).ItisimportantinconsideringOgden6typecasesthattheissueofdisabilityisproperlydeterminedbythemedicalexpertsandthattheyaregivenappropriateguidancebywayofexplanatorynotestothelegislationand/oranyrelevantcases,forexample,onthedefinitionofsubstantialimpairment.
Lesson 3
38. WardremindspractitionersthatinorderforOgden6tobeengagedthereareeffectivelythreetriggers:
(i) IstheClaimantdisabled?
(ii) Whatisthelikelypatternoftheclaimant’semployment(pre-accident);
(iii) Whatisthelikelypatternoftheclaimant’semployment(post-accident).
Aclaimantwillhavetoestablishtheirevidenceonallofthesegrounds.Clearlythisisgoingtobefertilegroundfordefendantstoseektocreateconfusionortodeconstructandunpicktheclaimant’scasesoastogivetheimpressionofuncertainty,seethemattersraisedintheCourtofAppeal’sJudgmentatparagraph25.
12
PERSONAL INJURY
Lesson 4
39. GivenAikensLJ’sviewthatdisabilityisnotthedeterminingfactorfortheapplicationoftheOgden6Tables,practitionersshouldtakecarenottoassumethatthatwillbetheinevitableresult.However,itisimportanttonotethatatparagraph20theCourtofAppealheld:
“It is common ground that the multiplicand/multiplier methodology and the tables and guidance in the current edition of Ogden should normally be applied when making an award of damages for future loss of earnings, unless the judge really has no alternative.”
ThisisarestatementoftheprinciplepropoundedinBullockandconfirmsthattheOgden6methodisthepreferredmethodoftheCourts.
Lesson 5
40. Oneoftheissuesthatledtouncertaintyinthetrialjudge’smindwasthefactthattheworkundertakenbytheclaimantwasfreelanceworkwithnoguaranteeofpermanencyandbyitsnaturewastemporary.Thismaypresentagreaterdegreeofriskforclaimantswhoareself-employediftheyarenotabletoestablishadegreeofcertaintyabouttheirfutureemploymentoncontractsortheprovisionofworkonalong-termbasis.
41. Furthermore,itseemsthatifotherCourtsweretoadoptasimilarapproachtothetrialjudgeinWard’scasethenchildrenand/oryoungpersonsarelikelytofinditmuchmoredifficulttoprovetheirfuturelossesbyreasonofthefactthatthereisagreaterdegreeofuncertaintyabouttheirfuture.Thisunderlinestheneedtoprepareapackageofevidenceinsupportoftheclaimant’sclaim.Ifthatevidenceismissing,onthebasisofWard,itwillnotbeanunfairconclusiontodrawthattheearningspositionissouncertainthataBlamireawardisjustified.
Lesson 6
42. Interestingly,atparagraph26theCourtofAppealappearstoleavethedooropenforahybridformofaBlamireaward.TheCourtheldatparagraph28:
“Mr Huckle does not suggest that, if the judge was correct to use the Blamire approach, nonetheless the amount of the lump sum awarded for loss of future earnings was unreasonably low because it failed to take account of the appellant’s disability. That submission was not advanced by any of the grounds of appeal or in his written oral argument.”
13
PERSONAL INJURY
ThisappearstoleavethedoorajarforclaimantswhoaregenuinelydisabledtoarguethatevenifaBlamireawardismade,someformofupliftorincreaseinthestandardawardoughttobemadetoreflectthefactthattheyaredisabled(asisprovidedforwithintheOgden6Tables).
Conclusions
43. Lastmonthheraldedthearrivalofthe7thEditionoftheOgdenTables.Asregardsfuturelossofearningstherewerelimitedchangestothemultipliers,butitisanticipatedthatthe8thEditionoftheOgdenTablesisgoingtoincludesomesignificantrevisionand/orguidancefromtheOgdenworkingpartyonthecalculationoffuturelossofearningsespeciallynowthatVictoriaWasshasjoinedtheOgdenworkingparty.
44. ThemethodbywhichtheCourtsassessfuturelossofearningscontinuestobeamovablefeastanditremainstobeseenwhethertheapproachoftheCourtsorpractitionersissimplifiedfollowingthemoredetailedguidanceanticipatedontheseissuesafterthepublicationofthe8thEditionoftheOgdenTables.
By Michael Lemmy & Matthew Snarr
9 St John Street Manchester
M3 4DN
November 2012
Endnotes1 Theauthorsacknowledgethepublicationofthe7thEditionoftheOgdenTablesinOctober2012.Forthesakeof
easeofunderstandingallreferenceswithinthisarticletoOgden6aretobeunderstoodinthatlight.Allexamplesare
calculatedusingthe7thEditionOgdenTables.
2 SeeMoeliker v A Reyrolle & Co Ltd[1977]1WLR132.
3 SeeMcGregoronDamages,18thEdition,Chapter35-095–35-099
4 SeeKemp&KempChapter9-026
5 Interestingly,HHJMcKenna,inthecaseofHindmarch v Virgin Airways[2011]EWHC1227(QB),acasethatwas
heardtogetherwithEvans,awardedHindmarch1year’sSmith v Manchesterawardincircumstanceswhereshewas
earningmorethanshedidasabeautytherapistandwheretherewaslittleevidenceofanyjobinsecurity.
6 Foramoredetailedanalysissee“TheImpactofJudicialDiscretionintheApplicationofNewOgden6Multipliers”
byVictoriaWassand“Ogden6AdjustmentstoWorkingLifeMultipliers”byChrisMeltonQ.C.
14
PERSONAL INJURY
GerardMcdermottQC
NicholasHinchliffeQC
PaulGilroyQC
MarkHillQC
ChristopherKennedyQC
TerenceRigby
NigelGrundy
AlistairBower
IanLittle
KarimSabry
DrAnthonyHoward
KirstenBarry
GrahamBailey
MichaelLemmy
BrianMcCluggage
KatieNowell
KathrineMallory
JaneMabon
ZoëThompson
MatthewHaisley
LucindaLeeming
VictoriaRigby
KirstyMcKinlay
RebeccaEeley
MatthewSnarr
RussellDickinson
IanDenham
BenMorris
DanielNorthall
HannahHaines
RachaelLevene
RachaelLewis
WilliamHamilton
LenaAmartey
EmmaGreenhalgh
JasmineSkander
Personal Injury Barristers