Edwards v Martin

In assessing damages for severe traumatic brain injury, losses caused by the psychiatric and behavioural consequences of the injury are recoverable where they are reasonably foreseeable, even though the precise manner of loss was not foreseeable. This may include accommodation and family-proceedings costs arising from relationship breakdown. A claimant may need regular professional support where it maintains quality of life and rehabilitation; the relevant consideration is the quality and function of support, not simply its quantity. Capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is decision-specific and time-specific, but a permanent inability to manage substantial financial assets may justify continuing deputyship costs. Residual earning capacity must reflect realistic prospects, setbacks and employment breaks.

The claimant suffered a severe head injury in a road traffic accident. Liability had been admitted, subject to a 15 per cent deduction for contributory negligence, leaving the assessment of damages for trial. The principal disputes concerned future earning capacity, accommodation, care and case management, therapeutic and holiday expenses, and whether the claimant lacked capacity to manage substantial financial affairs under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The court also considered whether the psychiatric consequences of the injury made accommodation and Family Court costs recoverable, and whether the claimant required lifelong professional support and financial deputyship.

1. Damages and accommodation. The claimant’s organic personality disorder and behavioural difficulties made it impracticable for him to continue living with his family. That consequence of a head injury was reasonably foreseeable. The cost of alternative accommodation was therefore recoverable, notwithstanding that no special equipment or physical adaptation was required. The same reasoning applied to the reasonable costs of Family Court proceedings concerning contact with his daughter.
2. Earnings. The claimant was permanently unfit for driving employment. He was not, however, permanently incapable of all remunerative work. The evidence supported a future capacity for simple, routine, part-time work in a sympathetic environment, with continuing vocational support and likely periods of unemployment. A deduction of £33,120 for residual earning capacity was made.
3. Care and case management. The claimant needed regular professional support to maintain a reasonable quality of life. The support worker’s proper role was that of an enabler. The material consideration was the quality of support rather than its numerical quantity. The award allowed 20 hours per week of paid support and 100 hours of case management for the first year, reducing thereafter to 10 hours per week and 80 hours per year.
4. Capacity. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 establishes a strong presumption of capacity and requires assessment by reference to the particular decision and material time. Applying sections 1 to 3, the claimant could make simple low-level decisions but could not manage a substantial sum of damages or important financial decisions. That incapacity was permanent, so the full future deputyship costs were recoverable.
5. Other losses and order. The court refused provisional damages for epilepsy, applied the standard life multiplier, made awards for therapies and holidays, and assessed total damages on a full-liability basis at £1,574,127.80. The agreed 15 per cent deduction and adjustments for interim payments, interest and deductible benefits were to be reflected in the final order.

First-instance assessment of damages following an admitted road traffic accident claim. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.