Leete v Snow & Anor

In assessing future loss of earnings, a court may use an agreed lump sum for an initial period and account for uncertainties affecting that period. It must then assess the remaining period separately. An overall multiplier must not obscure the distinct calculation or result in uncertainties being counted twice. Where the initial lump sum already reflects risks such as interruption of employment or maternity, those risks should not be deducted again from the multiplier for the balance of the working period. An appellate court may intervene where the calculation reveals an error of principle or produces a manifestly unjust result. Related deductions, including credit for residual earning capacity and reductions in pension loss, should be adjusted consistently with the revised assessment.

The appellant brought two personal injury actions arising from separate road traffic accidents. The trial judge awarded total damages of £242,907, attributing responsibility 60 per cent to the first respondent and 40 per cent to the second. The appeal concerned the £101,196 award for lost earning capacity and consequential pension loss.

The judge used an agreed lump sum for future loss to mid-2007 but then applied an overall multiplier of 13 to the remaining working period. The appellant argued that this improperly duplicated allowances for early receipt and future uncertainties. The central issue was whether the future loss calculation had properly separated the period to 2007 from the period thereafter.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal accepted that the trial judge was best placed to assess the facts and witnesses. Appellate intervention was nevertheless justified where the method of calculation disclosed an error of principle and produced an unjust result.
2. The judge was entitled to assess the period to mid-2007 by an agreed lump sum. That method could reflect the uncertainties likely to affect that period, including possible maternity and interruptions to employment. The description of the deduction as relating only to early receipt was unfortunate because early receipt had already been allowed for through the actuarial tables, but the judge was understood to have taken account of the relevant future uncertainties.
3. The judge erred when he thereafter used an overall multiplier without separately assessing the period from mid-2007 to retirement. The actuarial multiplier for that balance was 14.48, while the multiplier for the initial period was 6.32. Applying the overall approach effectively awarded only 6.68 for a potential employment period of 25 years. That result required clear findings of vulnerability in the employment market, which were absent. The appropriate multiplier for the balance was 10.
4. The consequential figures also required adjustment. The credit for residual earning capacity was reduced proportionately: 73 per cent of the agreed £25,280 credit produced £18,454. The reduction in the pension claim was 25 per cent for earning-capacity assessment plus 7 per cent for the chance of receiving a pension in future, producing £47,580 for lost pension.
5. Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Tuckey agreed with Lord Justice Latham’s reasons. An agreed minute of order was to be supplied.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Bristol District Registry: His Honour Judge Dyer awarded the appellant £242,907 in damages and interest in respect of two personal injury actions, including £101,196 for lost earning capacity.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed to the extent identified in Lord Justice Latham’s judgment, with adjustments to the future loss and pension calculations.