Gardner v R P Winder (Wholesale Meats) Ltd

Compensation for disadvantage on the labour market requires loss attributable to the defendant’s injury. Where agreed medical evidence establishes that the injury accelerated a pre-existing condition only temporarily, later employment difficulties caused by the underlying condition are not recoverable. The court may accept an earlier clear joint medical agreement and reject a later inconsistent report, particularly where the inconsistency is unexplained and clarification would be disproportionate. A claim for accelerated retirement or labour-market disadvantage fails where the claimant would, in any event, have been in the same position when the loss occurred.

The claimant appealed against a damages award made by His Honour Judge Appleton in Preston County Court on 31 May 2002. Liability and the award for pain, suffering and special damage were not challenged. The sole issue was whether the claimant was entitled to damages for future loss of earnings said to result from accelerated retirement or disadvantage on the labour market.

The claimant’s agreed medical evidence stated that the accident had accelerated symptoms from a pre-existing shoulder condition for between 18 and 36 months, after which the same disadvantage would have arisen without the accident. He was later made redundant for reasons unrelated to the accident or his physical condition. The central issue was whether his subsequent inability to obtain comparable work could nevertheless be attributed to the accident.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claimant’s subsequent financial loss was not caused by the accident.
2. The agreed medical evidence established that the accident had accelerated the claimant’s pre-existing shoulder symptoms for a period of between 18 and 36 months. The judge was entitled to adopt the midpoint of 27 months. The evidence also stated that the claimant’s labour-market disadvantage would inevitably have developed without the accident by the end of that period.
3. The later medical opinion that retirement had been brought forward by 18 to 36 months was materially inconsistent with the original joint agreement. The doctors gave no medical explanation for the inconsistency. The judge was therefore entitled to rely on the original agreement and discount the later report.
4. The principle recognised in Smith v Manchester Corporation permits compensation where injury creates a risk of losing employment and being unable to obtain comparable employment, or limits the work available to a person who is not working at the time of the accident. This case fell into neither category because the accident’s effects had ended before the claimant’s redundancy and later job-search difficulties.
5. Although an adjournment to require the doctors to attend might have clarified the evidence, it would have been disproportionate where the original agreement was clear. The appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the damages award of His Honour Judge Appleton in Preston County Court on 31 May 2002 was dismissed.