Hardwick v Hudson

Damages for gratuitous services supplied to an injured claimant’s business are not ordinarily recoverable as the reasonable value of those services. Commercial services normally fall within an employment relationship, and recovery requires proof of an express or implied contractual obligation or other actual loss suffered by the claimant. The court must also account for any financial benefit to the business and saved wage costs. This differs from gratuitous domestic or personal care, where damages may be recovered for the claimant’s benefit and held on trust for the carer. Judicial guidelines for general damages provide useful brackets but do not prevent an award above them where the claimant’s particular loss of amenity and additional injuries justify it.

The claimant was injured in a road traffic accident for which liability was admitted. At Mansfield County Court, Judge Machin awarded £54,093.30 inclusive of interest, principally for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, business-related assistance, gardening and replacement of do-it-yourself services.

The claimant appealed on the valuation of mechanic costs, his wife’s unpaid additional work in the business and the multiplier for future losses. The defendants cross-appealed against the awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The central issues were whether the claimant could recover for his wife’s gratuitous commercial services, how the business loss should be assessed, and whether the general damages and multipliers were justified.

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part. The total judgment was revised to £55,214.10. The parties were ordered to bear their own appeal costs, and the other ancillary orders stood.

1. Business loss. The administrative-clerk credit in the mechanic-cost calculation was limited to the period ending 31 October 1993. The agreed replacement figure was £11,546 rather than £9,208. The calculation properly reflected the claimant’s share of the replacement mechanic’s cost and the corresponding saving in administrative expenditure, consistent with Kent v British Railways Board (1995) 4 PIQR Q42.
2. Wife’s gratuitous services. The claimant could not recover for his wife’s additional unpaid managerial work merely by valuing those services at a reasonable wage. There was no evidence of an express or implied contract requiring payment. The business and, indirectly, the claimant had benefited from the arrangement, while the extent to which the additional work increased profitability could not reliably be assessed.
3. The case was distinguished from gratuitous domestic or personal care, for which damages may be recoverable for the claimant’s benefit and held on trust for the carer: Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350 and Cunningham v Harrison [1973] QB 942. The absence of sufficient proximity also meant that the tortfeasor owed the wife no direct duty of care: Best v Samuel Fox & Co Ltd [1952] AC 716.
4. Multipliers. The multiplier of five for replacement DIY services was upheld. The court substituted seven for gardening assistance because the trial judge’s emphasis on the claimant’s lost enjoyment of gardening made the lower multiplier inadequately reasoned.
5. General damages. The Judicial Studies Board guidelines were not binding. The trial judge could exceed their suggested bracket where the claimant’s particular loss of amenity and additional lower-back injury warranted it, but £19,500 was substantially excessive and was reduced to £15,500.

The assessment of damages for loss of income remains evaluative in nature, akin to a jury award, and appellate intervention requires a proper basis shown by the judgment and evidence: Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B) [1949] AC 196.

• Court of Appeal: Varied the Mansfield County Court judgment and revised the total sum to £55,214.10.
• Mansfield County Court: Judge Machin awarded £54,093.30 inclusive of interest after liability had been admitted.