Ronan v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd & Anor

The court must distinguish continuing loss of earnings from the contingent risk addressed by a Smith v Manchester award. A Blamire award is available only after continuing accident-related loss has been established; it provides a flexible method of quantification where conventional calculation is too uncertain. A reasonable, accident-related decision to requalify may support past earnings loss, and completing the course is not an unreasonable failure to mitigate. A later free choice to pursue lower-paid work does not make the resulting lifelong shortfall recoverable. Separate awards may cover an accident-related interim shortfall, proven pension loss, and labour-market handicap. The Smith assessment is evidence-based and is not measured mechanically by years’ purchase.

The claimant suffered serious leg injuries in an accident while working part time. He later left available employment at Abbey National and completed a university degree after deciding that continuing physical and psychological problems prevented his return. His claim included past earnings lost during requalification, casual stewarding income, a disputed wage overpayment, future earnings, pension loss and a Smith v Manchester award.

The Central London County Court found the university decision reasonable and accident-related. It awarded £50,000 for future loss using a global approach combining a Blamire award and a Smith v Manchester award. The defendants appealed the assessment of past and future earnings. The central issues were attribution, mitigation, the proper distinction between the two awards, and whether the Court of Appeal could assess damages itself.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Hughes delivered the leading judgment, with Lord Justice Hooper agreeing. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the £50,000 future-loss award was quashed and replaced by £28,800, comprising £15,000 for handicap on the labour market, £12,000 for the interim earnings shortfall and £1,800 for pension loss. The award for past loss was left undisturbed.
2. Past earnings and mitigation. The trial judge was entitled to accept the claimant’s evidence that his decision in 2002 not to return to Abbey National was caused by the continuing effects of the accident and was reasonable. Medical evidence that individual injuries did not, in isolation, prevent a return to work did not compel a different conclusion. The claimant was likewise entitled to complete the qualification once the decision to undertake it was reasonable and accident-related. Completing the course was not an unreasonable failure to mitigate.
3. The judge should have dealt separately with the casual stewarding income and alleged wage overpayment. However, the evidence supported inclusion of the stewarding income, and did not establish that an overpayment had occurred.
4. Future loss. A Blamire award and a Smith v Manchester award are distinct. A Blamire award quantifies a proved continuing earnings loss where conventional multiplier-and-multiplicand calculation is too uncertain. It cannot replace proof that a continuing shortfall is attributable to the accident. The claimant’s later choice to pursue teaching, despite being fit to return to banking, was a free choice and did not make a lifelong earnings difference recoverable. A shortfall during the period in which he would have advanced to the higher-paid banking position was nevertheless recoverable.
5. A Smith v Manchester award concerns two risks: future unemployment and reduced ability, because of the accident, to obtain fresh employment or equivalent pay. The risks here were relatively slight but real, particularly because of the claimant’s physical limitations and past depression. The evidence did not justify an award measured by two or three years’ purchase of earnings.
6. The Court of Appeal could assess the outstanding sums itself because the evidence was available and the assessment did not require resolving disputed evidence or witness reliability.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal to the extent of replacing the £50,000 future-loss award with £28,800 and left the past-loss award undisturbed: [2006] EWCA Civ 1074.
• Central London County Court: Found the claimant’s university requalification decision reasonable and accident-related, and awarded £50,000 for future loss using a global approach.