Knapman v Charman

An appellate court should respect a trial judge’s assessment of fact where the judge has addressed the evidential difficulties rationally and the conclusion falls within the proper margin of judgment. A claimant’s dishonesty does not automatically defeat a claim where independent medical and documentary evidence supports the relevant injury and loss. The duration of prospective loss of earnings may be inferred from the period during which medical evidence shows continuing incapacity. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, case management may include proportionate agreement or estimation of an issue, including an uncertain date, where a party fails to indicate that strict proof is required. A modest award for handicap in the labour market remains justified where continuing symptoms create a future disadvantage.

The claimant suffered back injuries in a road traffic accident caused by the defendant. The county court awarded damages including prospective loss of earnings based on inability to drive an HGV and £5,000 for handicap in the labour market.

The trial judge found the claimant to be an inveterate liar, but accepted independent evidence of a soft-tissue back injury and continuing symptoms. He inferred that the claimant remained unable to drive an HGV until his last visit to his general practitioner concerning back pain, treated as 15 February 1997. The defendant appealed the assessment of loss of earnings, the date used for its termination, the handicap award and the treatment of alleged undeclared earnings.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge’s findings on credibility were unassailable. His conclusion that the claimant was not a malingerer, despite being wholly unreliable as a witness, permitted reliance on independent medical and documentary evidence.
2. The judge was entitled to infer that the claimant’s inability to drive an HGV continued while his back was causing symptoms requiring medical attention. The fact that the claimant had performed heavy abattoir work did not compel the conclusion that he could undertake continuous long-distance driving. The preferred medical expert had not categorically established that the claimant could return to HGV driving at that time.
3. The judge’s reasoning was rational and fair. The accident caused the back pain, the pain caused the inability to drive, and the period of medical attendance provided the best available evidence of duration. The conclusion lay within the wide margin entrusted to the trial judge of fact.
4. The judge was entitled under Rules 1.4(2) and 3.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to adopt a proportionate approach to the uncertain date, encourage co-operation and treat the date as agreed. A party wishing to insist on strict proof should raise the issue at the time.
5. The £5,000 award for handicap in the labour market, based on continuing minor symptoms which could disadvantage the claimant if he lost his employment, was modest and not manifestly excessive. The defendants also failed to discharge the evidential burden of raising a proper issue as to undeclared earnings.

Lord Justice Peter Gibson agreed with Lord Justice Henry’s judgment. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal against the assessment of damages dismissed.
• Truro County Court: His Honour Judge Overend awarded the claimant £23,433.23 in damages, including prospective loss of earnings and £5,000 for handicap in the labour market.