Buckley & Ors v Yates Wine Lodges Ltd & Anor

In an assessment of damages, the court may make a final award despite medical uncertainty where the claimant has a strong and informed wish to conclude the proceedings. The court must assess the likely future course of injury on the balance of probabilities and may make appropriate allowances for uncertainty. Future treatment costs are recoverable where treatment is reasonably required to produce the anticipated improvement. Dependency claims involving uncertain business income should be assessed on a broad-brush basis, with realistic reductions for fluctuations in profitability, retained profits and uncertain employment. A claim for unpaid work requires a properly established legal and evidential basis.

Seven members of a family claimed damages arising from an attack outside a bar operated by the first defendant. Frank Buckley died eight days after sustaining severe injuries. The claimants alleged vicarious liability and negligence against the defendants.

Judgment had been entered against the second defendant in default. The first defendant’s Part 20 claim against the second defendant had been determined, and the claim against the first defendant was stayed pending proceedings under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. The claimants sought assessment of damages to pursue their judgment against the second defendant’s insurers. The court determined the appropriate damages, including claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.

1. Final assessment despite uncertainty. The court was prepared to make final assessments for the first and fifth claimants, although further treatment and a later prognosis might have produced more accurate awards. Their strongly expressed desire to conclude the proceedings, the time elapsed since the incident and the nature of the claims justified proceeding. Future psychiatric outcomes were assessed on the balance of probabilities.
2. Psychiatric injury and treatment. The first claimant’s psychiatric injury was assessed as moderately severe, but the award reflected the likely improvement following treatment. The cost of reasonably necessary treatment was recoverable, subject to a reduction for accelerated receipt. Similar treatment costs were awarded to the third and fifth claimants.
3. Dependency. The dependency claim was assessed using a broad-brush approach because precise future earnings could not be established. The court reduced projected income to reflect uncertainty concerning business profitability, future financial conditions, retained profits and the first claimant’s employment prospects. Future dependency was assessed at £35,000 annually, with past dependency assessed at £136,000, in addition to the calculated pension losses.
4. Other claims and orders. The court awarded damages for the claimants’ physical and psychological injuries, bereavement, funeral expenses, dependency, damaged clothing and treatment costs, together with interest as specified. The second claimant’s claim for £7,680 for unpaid work was rejected because its legal basis and evidential justification had not been established.

The judgment was a first-instance assessment of damages. Earlier procedural steps included judgment against the second defendant in default and a stay of the claim against the first defendant pending the claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930.