Claims For Loss Of Earnings.
The Court of Appeal recently dealt with two cases which give some insight into how claims for loss of earnings will be assessed in future. In the first case Ronan –v- Sainsbury’s Supermarkets [2006] All ER (D) 80 (Jul) the plaintiff sustained an injury whilst working for the Defendants which required several operations on his femur. After this surgery had been completed he began work with a retail banker. Unfortunately a subsequent operation was not as successful as the earlier surgery which caused the Plaintiff to become depressed and he duly left his job as a banker. Instead he commenced a three-year university degree in order to become a qualified teacher. The judge at first instance felt that this decision to leave his job and go to university could be considered a consequence of his accident and therefore a sum of money equivalent to three years earnings at the bank was awarded to cover this aspect of his claim.
The issue of future earnings proved particularly controversial as the judge opted to apply the “broad brush” approach highlighted in Blamire –v- South Cumbria Health Authority (1993) PIQR Q1 and awarded £50,000. Predictably both aspects of this decision were appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the award for loss of past earnings. In so doing they rejected the argument that by failing to drop out of his university course and resume full-time employment the Defendant had not properly mitigated his loss. The Court did however reduce the award for future earnings to £15,000. This was because they felt appropriate consideration of the principles in Blamire and Smith –v- Manchester City Council (1974) 17 KIR 1 had not taken place. They made the reduced award on the basis that whilst job security as a teacher was quite high, thus explaining the reduction in the future loss, the profession was not entirely without risk.
A decision with further implications for this area of law came in Woolley –v- Essex County Council [2006] EWCA Civ 753, [2006] All ER (D) 259 (May) when the Court of Appeal decided that a first instance judge had been correct to make no Smith v Manchester award. In this case the Plaintiff had fallen whilst training as a curtain waller. Consequently he developed a fear of heights.
The Court stated however that in order to successfully bring a claim for loss of future earnings the injured party needed to show that there was a real risk of losing his job and being subsequently prejudiced on the job market by his disability. The Court believed the Plaintiff’s job was reasonably secure and was unimpressed by the argument put forward by the Plaintiff’s Counsel that it was unrealistic to suggest there was no chance of him being unemployed in the future and subsequently hampered by virtue of his disability preventing him from applying for certain jobs.
These two cases illustrate something of a divergence in attitude from the Court depending upon the type of industry and the nature of the disability. The cases also highlight the care and careful consideration required when assessing special damages claims.