Tame v Professional Cycle Marketing Ltd.

In assessing damages for severe brain injury, future care must be evaluated broadly and realistically. The court must balance the claimant’s need for structure and supervision against the objective of preserving as much independence as possible. Continuous one-to-one attendance is not automatically justified where structured support, case management and contingency provision can meet the claimant’s needs. Care calculations may include allowances for fluctuating requirements and periods of intensive support.

A damages multiplier should not be adjusted for reduced life expectancy without sufficient evidence enabling a fair and reliable assessment. Family care is ordinarily subject to the conventional 25 per cent deduction, absent circumstances justifying a different approach. Reasonable accommodation and rehabilitation expenses are recoverable where they result from the injury and are shown to be reasonable in context.

The claimant suffered catastrophic brain injury in an accident at work. Liability was admitted, leaving the High Court to assess damages.

The principal dispute concerned the claimant’s future care and case-management needs. The court considered the extent of his continuing cognitive, behavioural and physical disabilities, the likely breakdown of his marriage, the level of professional support required, and the possibility of future paid employment. Other disputed heads included accommodation, rehabilitation, transport, activities, treatment and general damages.

1. Future care. The claimant required a strong case-management structure and effective supervision, but not necessarily a support worker physically present at all times. The court had to balance the need to provide sufficient structure and safety against the important objective of preserving the claimant’s independence and ability to make decisions for himself.
2. The assessment was necessarily broad and imprecise. The appropriate approach was to allow for good and bad periods, including a contingency for occasions when substantially greater one-to-one support would be required. The court allowed eight hours of weekday support, family care during the first year, ten hours’ daily support thereafter for 46 weeks per year, and six weeks of 24-hour contingency support in each year.
3. Life multiplier. The court declined to reduce the multiplier because the claimant smoked. There was no evidence permitting a sufficiently reliable assessment, and the issue had not been raised in time for the claimant to address it. In principle, evidence of reduced life expectancy could justify an adjustment.
4. Family care and consequential expenses. The conventional 25 per cent deduction was applied to family care. The costs of moving to accommodation closer to family and support networks were recoverable because the move was reasonable in light of the claimant’s disabilities. Rehabilitation-related activities, treatment, case management and reasonable support services were allowed where supported by the evidence.
5. The court assessed general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity at £150,000. Judgment was entered for the claimant in damages, with the detailed heads assessed as set out in the judgment.