Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority

In a personal-injury claim, the claimant bears the legal burden of proving both the likely earnings pattern but for the injury and the likely pattern after it. The conventional multiplicand/multiplier method is not compulsory. A judge may instead make a global, broad-brush assessment where substantial uncertainties make an arithmetical calculation unreliable.

Those uncertainties may include future employment, family circumstances, working preferences, recurrent symptoms, pension prospects and labour-market disadvantage. The appellate court will not interfere where the trial judge has evaluated those risks and possibilities fairly. A rough estimate may be necessary: [1956] AC 185.

The claimant, formerly a nurse, suffered a back injury while lifting a patient at work. Liability was admitted shortly before trial. The High Court found that the injury ended her nursing career, but left her capable of other work, including possible secretarial employment.

Mr Justice McCullough assessed damages and awarded £25,000 for future earnings loss, pension loss and labour-market handicap. He did not use a conventional multiplicand/multiplier calculation. The claimant appealed that part of the award, contending that it was too low and that the judge should have begun with an arithmetical calculation of projected earnings and pension loss.

The central issue was whether the uncertainties affecting the claimant's future made the judge's global assessment permissible and adequate.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Steyn gave the principal judgment. Lord Justice Hoffmann agreed. Lord Justice Balcombe also agreed with Lord Justice Steyn's reasons.
2. The claimant bore the legal burden of proving the likely course of her future earnings both without the injury and with its consequences. That burden did not shift to the defendant merely because the claimant advanced a multiplicand/multiplier calculation. Questions of mitigation could alter the position in an appropriate case, but no issue of unreasonable refusal of alternative work arose here.
3. The conventional multiplicand/multiplier method was not mandatory. The trial judge was entitled to reject it because the relevant contingencies were unusually difficult to quantify. They included the claimant's prospects of obtaining suitable work, the extent and timing of any future work, possible further children, her future wish to work, recurrent back symptoms, and the uncertain comparison between nursing, secretarial and part-time employment.
4. The judge had properly considered the likely loss of pension benefits. He was entitled to weigh the prospect of pension provision in secretarial employment against the likelihood that the claimant would be worse off than if she had remained in nursing. He had also taken account of her vulnerability in the labour market.
5. Assessment of such future financial loss required a global evaluation of risks and possibilities rather than a precise calculation. Following the practical approach described in [1956] AC 185, a broad estimate was permissible where the evidence did not justify greater precision. The £25,000 award fairly reflected the risks of future earnings loss, pension loss and labour-market handicap; a higher award would not have been justified.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The claimant's appeal against the assessment of future financial loss was dismissed: [1992] EWCA Civ 20.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Carlisle District Registry. Mr Justice McCullough assessed damages on 9 April 1991 after liability had been admitted. He awarded £25,000 for future earnings loss, pension loss and labour-market handicap.