Chase International Express Ltd. & Anor v McCrae

Future loss of earnings should not be calculated by the multiplier/multiplicand method unless supported by reliable evidence of pre- and post-accident earning capacity. Where the evidence is materially uncertain, a round-sum award may be appropriate.

Compensation for domestic task limitations requires a multiplier suited to the nature and likely duration of the tasks, rather than an ordinary retirement-based multiplier. Loss of congenial employment compensates loss arising from employment itself; recreational or social disadvantage belongs under pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

The claimant suffered serious wrist injuries when a van collided with his motorcycle while he was working as a courier. Liability had been agreed on a 50 per cent basis. The parties had also agreed general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, excluding loss of earning capacity and congenial employment.

At Slough County Court, the deputy district judge awarded total damages of £46,175.15, including awards for future earnings, inability to undertake certain domestic tasks, loss of congenial employment and the additional cost of automatic-transmission cars. The defendants appealed those four heads of damage. The central issues were whether the evidence justified the methods of assessment adopted and whether the award for congenial employment addressed a legally relevant loss.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The award for future loss of earnings was set aside and replaced with £12,500. The domestic-task award was reduced to £3,750. The £2,000 award for loss of congenial employment was set aside. The award for the additional cost of automatic-transmission cars was left undisturbed.
2. For future earnings, a multiplier/multiplicand calculation required reliable evidence of both pre-accident and post-accident earning capacity. The claimant’s short and disjointed employment history, together with the absence of evidence about his ability to obtain other work, made the figures used by the deputy district judge unreliable. The continuing reduction in earning ability was therefore assessed by a round sum, following the approach in Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority [1993] PIQR Q1.
3. The claimant established an ongoing inability to perform heavy domestic tasks, and £250 per year was an appropriate valuation. A multiplier of 20.21 was unsuitable because the tasks were likely to become less relevant with age and a future wrist fusion might remove the disability. A multiplier of 15 years purchase was substituted.
4. Loss of congenial employment must compensate loss of satisfaction derived from employment. The deputy district judge relied instead on the claimant’s inability to pursue motorcycle holidays, skiing and other social activities. Those matters fell within pain, suffering and loss of amenity. In any event, employment as a motorcycle courier for only about seven weeks did not justify an award under this head.
5. Mr Justice Newman, concurring, stressed that a broad-brush approach permits justice despite gaps in detail but does not make an absence of evidential material acceptable. A claimant must provide evidence capable of supporting the conclusions sought.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2003] EWCA Civ 505, the defendants’ appeal was allowed to the extent indicated.
• Slough County Court — On 17 October 2002, Deputy District Judge Duncan assessed total damages at £46,175.15.