Cadet’s Car Rentals and another v Pinder

Assessment of future loss of earnings should separately capitalise the earnings that would have been received without injury and the earnings likely to be received after injury. The latter figure must be deducted from the former. A single multiplier applied to the annual difference is erroneous where actuarial tables are being used. An appellate court should interfere with an award of damages only for an error of law or where the award is so inordinately high or low as to be wholly erroneous. UK actuarial tables may provide guidance in The Bahamas, but they reflect UK conditions and have no force of law. Local courts must consider whether adjustment or local tables are appropriate.

Mr Pinder suffered serious permanent injury in a road accident and claimed damages in negligence. Liability was undisputed, but the assessment of future earnings remained contested. The Supreme Court awarded $380,000 using an annual loss of $20,000 and a multiplier of 19.1, rejecting a Smith v Manchester Corporation award. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision to assess future earnings but substituted a multiplicand of $19,240 and a multiplier of 4.8461, reducing the award to $93,238.96. The appeal concerned appellate intervention, the correct multiplicand, and the proper use of the Ogden Tables in The Bahamas.

The Board allowed the appeal, quashed the Court of Appeal’s award of $93,238.96, and substituted an award of $650,043.21.

1. Appellate intervention. An appellate court should not interfere with an assessment of damages merely because it would have awarded a different sum. Intervention requires an error of law or an award so inordinately high or low that it is a wholly erroneous estimate. The Board applied the principles stated in Flint v Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354 and Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Co Ltd [1951] AC 601.
2. Use of actuarial tables. The parties accepted the Ogden Tables as guidance on this appeal. The Tables reflect UK mortality, contingencies and economic conditions and do not have the force of law in The Bahamas. The local courts must consider whether adjustment is required or whether Bahamian tables would be preferable. The Board applied the approach in Scott v Attorney General [2017] UKPC 15.
3. Correct calculation. The court must assess separately: (a) the capitalised value of earnings the claimant would have received without injury; and (b) the capitalised value of likely post-injury earnings. The second figure is deducted from the first. Both lower courts erred by applying a single multiplier to the annual loss.
4. Application. The correct multiplicand was $19,240, representing the proved weekly loss of $370 multiplied by 52. The contingencies arising from unemployment, disability and lack of educational qualifications were addressed through the tables. The Board calculated pre-injury earnings at $750,842.09 and post-injury earnings at $100,798.88, producing a net award of $650,043.21.

The Board invited submissions on costs.

• Privy Council: In [2019] UKPC 4, the appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal’s award was quashed and $650,043.21 was substituted.
• Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas: The decision to award loss of future earnings was upheld, but the multiplicand and multiplier were reduced, producing an award of $93,238.96.
• Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas: The Chief Justice awarded $380,000 for loss of future earnings using a $20,000 annual loss and a multiplier of 19.1.