Stacey v National Leisure Catering

An appellate court should be slow to interfere with a trial judge’s findings of fact, particularly where they depend on witness evidence and the judge has carefully assessed competing explanations. A claimant-specific assessment may justify departing from the average assumptions in the Ogden Tables; an automatic further discount is not required where the evidence on contingencies is balanced. Any adjustment for reduced life expectancy requires evidence of its effect on the calculation, not guesswork. Future care damages may be assessed on the basis that a spouse is relieved of caring responsibilities. A narrow appeal concerning changed Court of Protection charges may be permitted where it involves a straightforward calculation.

The claimant suffered serious psychiatric disability after a road accident for which the defendant admitted liability. Mr Justice Garland found that the accident materially contributed to the claimant’s condition and awarded damages, including future earnings, care, care management and Court of Protection costs.

The defendant appealed the causation findings and several aspects of quantum. The appeal concerned whether the judge had been entitled to rely on disputed witness evidence, whether the Ogden Tables required further discounts, whether future care should exclude the claimant’s wife’s care, and whether a later change in Court of Protection charges justified revising the award.

1. Causation and factual findings. The judge had carefully considered the evidence, including the disputed evidence concerning the claimant’s work and promotion, the medical evidence, and alternative explanations for the claimant’s deterioration. His conclusion that the accident materially contributed to the claimant’s psychological condition was open to him. The Court of Appeal was no better placed to reach a different view and would not disturb the findings.
2. Evidence and corporate silence. The absence of evidence from the defendant’s personnel did not justify adverse assumptions of the kind discussed in British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877, because the company had not deliberately chosen to withhold evidence. The documentary evidence nevertheless required careful consideration in its evidential context.
3. Future earnings. The Ogden Tables are designed for the average case. There is no automatic obligation to apply a further discount for contingencies where claimant-specific arguments have been advanced and the judge finds them balanced. Nor should a multiplier be reduced merely because life expectancy is agreed to be shorter than average. Evidence is required showing how the particular life expectancy affects the Ogden calculation. Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350 did not require an automatic 10 per cent reduction.
4. Future care. The judge was entitled to assess future care on the basis that the claimant’s wife would be relieved of caring for him. The hours of past care reasonably provided by a spouse living in the household did not determine the hours of future professional care required on the assumption that she would not provide care.
5. Court of Protection costs and disposition. Permission was granted to amend the grounds to address the changed charging basis. The point involved a straightforward calculation and did not amount to fresh evidence of the kind considered in Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666. The appeal was allowed only to substitute £27,772 for the Court of Protection costs award. It was dismissed in every other respect. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Garland in the Queen’s Bench Division dated 12 April 2000. The appeal was allowed only to substitute £27,772 for the Court of Protection costs award and was dismissed in all other respects.