Collett v Smith & Anor

In assessing damages for loss of a chance, the court must reflect the prospects that the chance would have materialised. Where significant uncertainty exists, a discount is appropriate; where it does not, the full loss may be awarded. The assessment must be based on the totality of the evidence and the individual claimant’s attributes and prospects. A mechanistic statistical approach is inappropriate where substantial evidence is available about the claimant personally. For future earnings, the court may adopt a broad-brush assessment using a conventional multiplier and multiplicand, with discounts for injury and other contingencies. A possible future career is too speculative to compensate where the evidence does not permit a sufficiently reliable assessment.

The claimant suffered a serious leg injury through admitted negligence while playing for Manchester United’s reserve team. Liability had been determined by consent, leaving assessment of damages for loss of earnings and pension loss.

The central issues were whether, absent the injury, the claimant would have established a professional football career, the level and duration of that career, his likely post-trial earnings, and whether he had lost a compensable chance of becoming a football manager or coach.

1. Loss of earnings. The court assessed the claimant’s prospects by considering the totality of the evidence. The evidence of those who had known his abilities and character over many years was given particular weight.
2. A statistical analysis of former Manchester United scholars was useful in demonstrating the competitiveness of professional football, but could not determine the claimant’s individual prospects. His personal attributes, achievements and evidence from those familiar with his development made a mechanistic statistical approach inappropriate.
3. On the balance of probabilities, the claimant would have remained under contract with Manchester United until at least age 21, then transferred to an aspiring Championship club. He would have played at least at Championship level throughout his career, subject to injury and other contingencies.
4. There was a 60 per cent chance that he would have played in the Premiership for one third of his playing career. The court calculated past and future losses using the best available remuneration evidence, allowing for bonuses, additional payments and agents’ fees.
5. The principles governing loss of a chance, identified in Davies v Taylor [1974] AC 207 and Doyle v Wallace [1998] PIQR Q 147, were applied. A modest discount was made for past contingencies and a 15 per cent discount for future injury and other contingencies.
6. The possible career in football management or coaching was too speculative to support an award. Pension loss and interest remained to be determined at a further hearing.