Chamberlain v South Downs Health NHS

Where future loss depends on numerous imponderables, particularly where the lost activity is a sideline rather than the claimant’s main occupation, the court may assess damages by a broad lump sum rather than applying a conventional multiplier. The assessment must reflect the realistic prospects established by the evidence. A claimant is not necessarily entitled to compensation for a lower qualification or alternative work if the findings show that she would not in practice have pursued that activity without obtaining the qualification she intended to achieve.

The claimant, a senior occupational therapist, suffered an accident for which liability was admitted. She claimed damages for loss of prospective earnings from piano teaching, which she had intended to undertake alongside her principal occupation.

The Central London County Court found a 40 per cent chance that she would obtain the necessary qualification and teach the piano. It awarded £10,000 on a Smith v Manchester basis, rather than applying a multiplier for the remainder of her working life. Permission to appeal was refused by the trial judge and subsequently by Latham LJ on paper. The claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, challenging both the treatment of lower qualifications and the lump-sum assessment.

1. Application refused. The court upheld the trial judge’s approach to assessing the claimant’s prospective piano-teaching earnings.
2. The judge was entitled, on the evidence, to find that the claimant would probably not have taught piano unless she obtained the full qualification identified in the evidence. Although intellectually it might be possible to posit a greater chance of teaching with a lower qualification or without qualification, the factual findings did not support compensation on that basis.
3. Where the prospective loss concerns a sideline activity and is affected by numerous imponderables, including the claimant’s future satisfaction, career choices and family circumstances, there may be no realistic basis for applying a multiplier over the remainder of the claimant’s working life. A broad lump sum assessed on a Smith v Manchester basis was therefore open to the judge.
4. The Court of Appeal saw force in the claimant’s analytical criticisms but found no realistic prospect of showing that the trial judge’s assessment was unavailable on the evidence. Permission to appeal was refused. There was no order for costs.

• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Butter QC assessed damages at £10,000 for loss of prospective piano-teaching earnings. Permission to appeal was refused.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Latham LJ refused permission on paper. Schiemann LJ and Kay LJ refused the claimant’s renewed application. There was no order for costs.