Morrow v Shrewsbury Rugby Union Football Club Ltd

In a personal injury claim, the ordinary but for test remains the starting point for causation. A claimant’s mistaken understanding of an injury, or treatment based on that understanding, does not break the chain of causation without proof of an intervening act. A vulnerable witness may receive procedural adjustments under the court’s general case-management powers, but an intermediary’s role is limited to communication and comprehension. The eggshell principle applies to a claimant’s psychiatric or somatic vulnerability as well as physical susceptibility. In assessing multiple injuries, the court should account for overlap and stand back from guideline brackets to reach a just award. A claim for loss of congenial employment requires evidence that the employment itself was congenial.

The claimant suffered physical and psychological consequences after being struck by a falling rugby post while watching his son play. Liability was admitted. The principal issues were the extent of the claimant’s injuries, whether the accident caused the recurrence of epilepsy and his subsequent withdrawal from work, the effect of pre-existing psychological traits and income-protection payments, and the appropriate damages for earnings, care, treatment and other losses.

The court also considered the use of an intermediary and procedural adjustments for a vulnerable party in civil proceedings.

1. Procedural adjustments. The court possessed a general case-management power to make appropriate adjustments so that a vulnerable party could participate effectively and give his best evidence. An intermediary’s function was confined to helping the witness understand questions and communicate answers. The intermediary was independent, owed the duty to the court, and was not a general support worker, advocate or umpire. The court retained control over questioning, breaks and the ground rules.
2. Causation. The court declined to replace the ordinary but for test with a broad value judgment about the fairness of imposing liability. The claimant’s treatment on the mistaken basis that he had continuing brain damage did not obliterate the defendant’s wrongdoing or constitute an intervening act breaking the chain of causation. Following the recommendation of a jointly instructed case manager was reasonable and did not amount to a failure to mitigate.
3. Vulnerability and medical causation. The eggshell principle applied to the claimant’s pre-existing psychological susceptibility. The accident caused a severe somatic and psychiatric reaction, which caused sleep disturbance and psychological upset, leading to the recurrence of pre-existing epilepsy. The resulting fear of further seizures and somatic disorder caused the claimant to stop work when he did.
4. The claimant would probably have continued working as an IFA until age 55, but he failed to prove loss of earnings beyond that age. The claim succeeded in part on that basis.
5. Damages. Applying Sadler v Filipiak [2011]EWCA 1728, the court allowed for overlap between injury categories and stood back from the guideline brackets. General damages were assessed at £58,000. A separate award for loss of congenial employment was refused because the evidence showed that the work was tiring and stressful, and did not establish that it was enjoyed for its own sake.