Huntley (aka Joseph Paul Hopkins) v Simmons

Expert evidence, including a joint statement, remains evidence for the trial judge to evaluate with the whole evidential picture. A judge may reject competing expert opinions and make a broad-brush assessment where future care needs are variable and unpredictable, provided the assessment is grounded in evidence and the judge does not assume the role of an expert. An appellate court should not interfere with such an assessment, or with a multiplier for probable future expenditure, where the trial judge had an evidential basis and the figure was not arbitrary. Guideline brackets and comparable awards may be used as a cross-check for general damages; detailed comparison of every authority is not required.

The appellant suffered severe brain damage in a car accident. Liability was admitted. Mr Justice Underhill assessed damages in the High Court and indicated that a periodical payment order might be appropriate for future care, but subsequently made a lump-sum award after further advice. The appellant appealed against the damages assessment and the later ruling on the form of award. The principal issues were whether the judge had properly evaluated the expert evidence, whether his future-care and gym expenditure assessments were arbitrary, and whether the general damages award fell within the appropriate guideline bracket.

Disposition. Lord Justice Waller delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Etherton agreeing. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The challenge to the damages assessment and the contingent challenge to the lump-sum award therefore failed.

1. Expert evidence is important but remains evidence. The trial judge must assess it with all other evidence, and factual evaluation remains for the judge. A joint statement does not bind the judge where the parties have not agreed that it is binding evidence. It may be admitted without calling the experts, while remaining subject to evaluation. The judge must not become an expert or give evidence himself, but may reach his own conclusion where the evidential material permits it.
2. The judge was entitled to reject both competing care experts and assess future care from the medical evidence, the evidence of the claimant’s capabilities and needs, and the wider factual material. Because the claimant’s needs could fluctuate and could not be reduced to a precise mathematical calculation, a broad-brush assessment was permissible. The judge allowed a further period of intensive care and then assessed the longer-term requirement after applying appropriate discounts. The assessment was evidence-based and was not arbitrary.
3. The judge was also entitled to use a 10-year multiplier for gym expenditure. That figure did not assume that gym use would cease at a particular age; it reflected the range of reasons why the expenditure might not continue.
4. For general damages, the judge correctly identified the applicable guideline brackets and placed the claim near the boundary between the moderately severe and moderate categories. Comparable awards served as a cross-check. A detailed analysis of every authority was unnecessary where the guideline bracket had been properly identified.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the damages assessment and the ruling on the form of award was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Mr Justice Underhill assessed damages in the judgment reported at [2009] EWHC 405 (QB) and subsequently made a lump-sum award.