Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust & Anor

In assessing damages for future losses, the court must avoid discounting twice for mortality. Where the evidence establishes the claimant’s overall individual life expectancy, the multiplier should reflect payment for that predicted period without a further statistical mortality discount. A different approach may be appropriate where the evidence establishes only a reduction in ordinary life expectancy. A claimant’s future care, accommodation, transport and treatment costs are recoverable where the negligence materially caused requirements beyond those which would otherwise have existed. No notional credit is required for care or services that would not have been paid for.

This was a supplemental first-instance judgment concerning the quantification of damages following the substantive judgment in [2014] EWHC 3016 (QB). The claimant had suffered pressure sores and consequential deterioration following the defendants’ breach of duty. The parties disputed the appropriate multiplier for future losses and whether future care, accommodation, transport and treatment claims should be reduced to reflect conditions or needs that would have arisen in any event. The central issues were whether the claimant’s agreed life expectancy was an overall prediction or merely a reduction in statistical life expectancy, and whether any future loss should be subject to a later cut-off.

1. Multiplier. The agreed finding was that the claimant would live to age 78, a further 10.75 years. The court held that this was a prediction of her overall individual life expectancy, taking account of significant relevant factors including immobility, weight and smoking. Applying the mortality-based Table 2 would therefore impose an additional and unfair discount. The appropriate multiplier was 9.44 using Ogden Table 28.
2. The court distinguished the approach in Crofts v Murton [2009] EWHC 3538 (QB) and Smith v LC Window Fashions Limited [2009] EWHC 1532 (QB), because those cases concerned evidence of a reduction in pre-morbid statistical life expectancy rather than an overall prediction of the individual claimant’s life expectancy. The court applied the no-double-discount principle identified in Royal Victoria Infirmary v B [2002] Lloyds LR (Med) 282 and followed the reasoning in Whiten v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2066 (QB).
3. Future losses. The claimant required 24-hour care by two carers for life, materially beyond the care required in the counterfactual position. There was no proper future cut-off at age 75, and no notional credit was required for care that would not have been paid for. The additional vehicle requirement was materially caused by the need for two carers. The full physiotherapy claim was allowed because the evidence established additional sessions and was unchallenged by equivalent expert evidence. The court also rejected deductions for one carer’s holiday costs.
4. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £2,894,814.69, with the final order to be agreed by counsel.