Hiom v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc

Where a claimant establishes some future disadvantage caused by personal injury but the evidence provides no reliable mathematical basis for quantifying future loss of earnings, the court may make a broad lump-sum award reflecting the disadvantage. The assessment must remain grounded in the probabilities proved by the evidence. A claimant’s pre-accident work history, qualifications and realistic employment prospects may justify rejecting an earnings model based on speculative career plans. The court may also reduce damages where the claimant’s unreasonable conduct materially delayed recovery.

The claimant suffered serious leg, neck and shoulder injuries after being knocked from his motor scooter by a car. Liability was accepted shortly after proceedings were issued in the County Court. The claim was transferred to the High Court because of difficulties in obtaining a hearing on damages.

The principal issues concerned past and future loss of earnings, the effect of the claimant’s conduct on the period of recovery, future care and rehabilitation costs, and general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The claimant also alleged psychiatric injury and relied on a proposed future earnings model based on taking over his father’s handyman business.

1. Loss of earnings. The court rejected the claimant’s proposed earnings assumptions. His employment history and pre-accident plans were unreliable, and the evidence did not establish a probable career producing the claimed income. On the balance of probabilities, his likely pre-accident earnings were assessed at an average of £3,500 per year.
2. Reduction for delayed recovery. The claimant was not shown to have been at fault for the 2005 postponement of surgery. However, his conduct in 2007 unreasonably delayed removal of the Ilizarov frame and prolonged recovery by six months. That period was deducted from the earnings claim.
3. Future loss. There was no mathematical basis for assessing future loss of earnings. Nevertheless, the claimant’s damaged leg would disadvantage him in obtaining employment, even though he was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act. Applying the approach in Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority [1993] PIQR 1, the court made a broad lump-sum award of £25,000.
4. Future care was limited to one hour per month for 18 months, with the award discounted because the care would be provided by a relative. The costs of the initial residential rehabilitation course were recoverable, but further residential treatment and cognitive behaviour therapy were not justified. A further £2,000 was allowed for assistance in obtaining employment.
5. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity were assessed at £24,000, taking account of the serious leg injury, continuing neck and shoulder symptoms, psychiatric injury and exacerbation of the claimant’s pre-existing mental and social difficulties. The judgment directed counsel to calculate the sums for inclusion in the order.

Proceedings were issued in the County Court, where liability was accepted. The claim was subsequently transferred to the High Court for determination of damages. No appeal or earlier judgment is stated.