PERSONAL INJURY

We Need To Talk About Katie

23 November 2012

www.9sjs.comcivilclerks@9sjs.com9 St John Street, Manchester, M3 4DNDX Address: 14326 MANCHESTER 3Tel: 0161 955 9000

ABSTRACTTh isarticleconsiderstheimpactofKatie Ward – v – Allies and Morrison Architects[2012]EWCACiv1287onthelitigationlandscaperegardinglossofearningsawardsbyreasonofmoderateorsubtleinjuries.

ByMichaelLemmyandMatthewSnarr

2

PERSONAL INJURY

Introduction

1. InWard v Allies and Morrison Architects[2012]EWCACiv1287theCourtofAppealadjudicatedontheappropriatenessofmakingaBlamireawardasopposedtoadoptingaconventionalOgden61multiplicand/multipliercalculationtocompensatefuturelossofearningsandonwhetherthedeterminationofwhetheraninjuredpartyisdisabledisconclusiveinadoptingtheOgden6multiplicand/multiplierapproach.

A Short History

2. UponthepublicationofthefirsteditionoftheOgdenTablesin1984itbecamepossibleforCourtsandpractitionerstoadoptamoreaccurateapproachtopredictingfuturepecuniarylosses,includingfuturelossofearnings.TheCivilEvidenceAct1995,Section10,makestheOgdenTablesadmissibleperseinevidence.

3. TheOgdenTableswereapprovedbytheHouseofLordsinWells v Wells[1999]AC945perLordLloydatp379whostated,

“I do not suggest that judges should be a slave to the tables. There may well be special factors in particular cases. But the tables should now be regarded as a starting point rather than a check. A judge should be slow to depart from the relevant actuarial multiplier on impressionistic grounds or be referenced to “a spread of comparable cases, especially when the multipliers were fixed before actuarial tables were widely used.”

4. Personalinjurypractitionerswillbefamiliarwiththeconceptofdiscountingthemultipliersintables3to14toreflectcontingenciesotherthanmortalitiesundertheauspicesofwhatusedtobetermedgenerallabourmarketforces.Theartofdiscountingbecameacrudebutsomewhatpredictableexercise,perhapsimpreciseorunjustfromtheclaimant’sperceptive,itcarriedadegreeofcertaintyamongstpractitionersandtheCourt.

5. ResearchcarriedoutbyDrVictoriaWassatCardiffUniversityandZoltanButt,RichardVerrallandStephenHabbermanatCityUniversitydemonstratedthatthekeyissuesaffectingaperson’sfutureworkinglifearedependenton:

a) Gender;

b) Disabilitystatus;

3

PERSONAL INJURY

c) Educationalattainment;

d) Employmentstatus.

6. TheOgden6TableswerepublishedinMay2007andincorporatedTablesA-Dtoprovideforseparateadjustmentstobemadeforindividualemploymentstatus,educationalandvocationalqualificationsanddisability.

7. AccordingtotheIntroductiontothe7thEditionoftheOgdenTables,theresearchbyVictoriaWassandhercolleaguesdemonstratesthatpeoplewithoutdisabilitiesspendmoretimeoutofemploymentthanearlierresearchsuggested.Italsodemonstratesthatfactorssuchasoccupation,geography,industrialsectorandlevelofeconomicactivityarelessimportantthanhadpreviouslybeenconsidered.

8. ThenewapproachtocalculatingfuturelossofearningsendorsedinOgden6(nowOgden7)heraldedasignificantincreaseinvaluationandawardsofclaimant’sfuturelossofearningsclaims.ArguablyitalsobeganthedemiseofSmith v Manchesterawards.Anexampleoftheincreasedlevelofcompensationisshownbelow:

Example A: Pre-Ogden 6

A35yearoldman,livingintheNorthWest,suffersanamputationtohisrightdominantlegcausinghimtobeunabletocontinuehisworkasalumberjackinwhichheearned£20,000netperannum.Henowworksasapart-timecarparkattendantearning£10,000perannum.

Differencebetweenpreandpost-accidentearnings=£10,000p.a.

OgdenTable9(multiplierforlossofearningstopensionage65(males))atadiscountrateof2.5%fora35yearoldmaleis20.57.

Thediscountfactorformediumeconomicactivityforamanaged35is0.96.Thatdiscountfactorisreducedby0.02toreflecttheriskynatureoftheClaimant’semploymentandby0.02toreflecthisgeographicallocationgivingadiscountfactorof0.92.

0.92×20.57×£10,000=£189,244.

4

PERSONAL INJURY

Example B: Post Ogden 6 calculation

(i) butforearnings=£20,000perannum(multiplicand×18.33[0.89–TableA×20.6OgdenTable9])=£366,600;

(ii) asisearnings=£10,000perannum(multiplicand×8.03[.38–TableB×20.60OgdenTable9])=£80,300;

(iii) £366,600–£80,300=£286,300.

9. Moreinterestingly,apartfromtheincreaseinawardsforclassicfuturelossofearningscalculations,claimants’representativesbegantoadoptanOgden6/7calculationinrespectofwhathadpreviouslybeenSmith v Manchestertypeclaimsonthebasisthattheactuarialfiguresanddiscountsincorporatedthelikelihoodthataclaimant,disabledbytheirinjury,waslikelytospendmoretimeoutofworkthananon-disabledpersonandaccordinglythismethodofcalculationwasmoreaccuratethanthebroadbrushapproachofaSmith v Manchesteraward.

10. Theeffectofthisapproachistoincreasecompensationforfuturelossofearningsawardswhereclaimantshavesufferedseriousinjurybuthavereturnedtowork.Anexampleofsuchcaseissetoutbelow:

Example C: Nil Ongoing Loss

Anemployedchauffeuraged25suffersanaccidentatworkwhenafellowemployeeshutsacardooronhishandresultinginacrushinjurytohisleft,non-dominanthand,withacontinuingminortomoderatelackofgripstrength.Theinjurydoesnotpreventtheclaimantfromcarryingoutanyofhisworkrelatedactivitiesasachauffeur;hedrivesanautomaticvehicleandcanhandlemostbaggage.Hewould,however,haveobviousdifficultieswithamanualgearboxorindeedanyheavymanualemployment.TechnicallytheclaimantmayfallwithinthedefinitionofdisabledwithinthemeaningoftheEqualityAct2010.Pre-Ogden6suchaclaimantwouldprobablyhavecontendedforaSmith v Manchesterawardintheregionofapproximatelyoneortwoyears.Post-Ogden6aclaimantwouldnowbelikelytopleadhisclaimasfollows:–

(i) ‘butfor’theaccidenttheclaimantwouldhaveearned£20,000perannum×18.33[0.89–TableA×20.66–OgdenTable9]=£366,600;

(ii) pursuanttoOgden6theclaimantwillnowearn£20,000perannum×8.03[0.39–TableB×20.60–OgdenTable9]=£160,600;

5

PERSONAL INJURY

(iii) totalequals£366,600–£160,600=£206,600;

(iv) ifsuchanapproachwereacceptedbytheCourt,itislikelythattheCourtwouldadjustthemultipliersproposedabove.

11. ThepositionthereforeisthatmanypractitionersarguethattheOgden6Tablesarethestartingpointforclaimantsvaluingclaimsofthisnature.

The Rise and Demise of Handicap on the Open Labour Market Awards

12. TraditionallythescenarioinwhichaninjuredclaimantremainsinworkhasbeencompensatedbytheprovisionofaSmithandManchesteraward.AlthoughitwasnotthefirstofitskindSmith v Manchester Corporation[1974]17K.I.R.1CAbecametheguidelineauthorityfortheprovisionofanawardtocompensatethelossofearningcapacityrepresentedbythephysicalhandicapproducedbytheinjuryasopposedtoanactuallossofearnings.

13. TwopreconditionsmustbesatisfiedinorderforaSmith v Manchesterawardtobemade:

(i) Theremustbea“substantial”or“real”riskthataclaimantwilllosehispresentjobatsomepointbeforetheestimatedendofhisworkinglife;

(ii) Ifthereissucharisk,theCourtmustassessandquantifythepresentvalueoftheriskofthefinancialdamagewhichtheclaimantwillsufferifthatriskmaterialises,havingregardtothedegreeoftherisk,thetimewhenitmaymaterialiseandthefactors,bothfavourableandunfavourable,whichinaparticularcasewill,ormay,affecttheclaimant’schancesofgettingajobatall,oranequallywellpaidjob2.

14. Oncethesetwopreconditionsaresatisfied,theCourtmustcalculatethepresentvalueofthatfutureloss.Thisisnormallydonebyreferencetotheclaimant’sannualnetincome.However,theapproachofSmithandManchesterawardshasledtosomecriticismthattheprocessremainsquitearbitraryandthatCourtstendtoleantotheungeneroussideintheirawards.3

15. Theintroductionofthenewmethodofcalculatingfuturelossofearningsinthe6thEditionoftheOgdenTableswasaccompaniedbyviewsexpressedbypractitionersandacademicsthatthenewmethodwouldmakeSmith v Manchesterawardsmainlyredundant.4ThepremisesforthisapproachisthattheOgden6Tablesprovidedwithinthemstatisticalcalculationsdesignedtoreflecttheriskthatadisabledworkingornon-workingindividualwouldcomeontotheopenlabourmarket.

6

PERSONAL INJURY

16. Inpractice,althoughslowly,theCourtshavetendedtoleantowardsadoptingamultiplier/multiplicandapproachusingtheOgden6TablesasagainstmakingaSmith v Manchesteraward.InSharma v Noon Products Limited[2011]QBDanagencyworkersufferedacrushinginjurytohisrightindexfingerresultinginthefingerbeingconsiderablyshorter,painandlimiteddexterity.Atthetimeoftrialtheclaimantwasindirectemployment.Hehadbeenemployedfor3years.Thedefendantcontendedfora6monthsSmith v Manchesterawardinthesumof£7,500,theclaimantcontendedforalifelossof£150,000.TheCourtheldthattheclaimant’sresidualdisabilitymeantthathisprospectsofemploymentandpromotionwereseverelylimited.Thoseriskswereaccountedforinthe6thEditionoftheOgdenTablesandadoptedamultiplierapproach.Importantly,theCourtupliftedthedisabledmultiplierdiscountfigurefromTableBfrom0.4to0.6,resultinginafuturelossofearningsof£92,000.

17. InEvans v Virgin Atlantic Airways[2011]EWHC1805(QB)HisHonourJudgeMcKennaadoptedanOgden6calculationinacaseinvolvingabeautytherapistwhohadsufferedaworkrelatedupperlimbdisorderasaconsequenceofheremploymentbuthadbeenredeployedintoaclericalpositionatalowersalary.TheCourtassessedfuturelossofearningsonthebasisthattheclaimantwouldretraintoworkatalowerprofessionallevelthanafulltherapist.5

Blamire – the magic bullet

18. Blamireawardsaregenerallyseenastheexception.Theycanbeappropriateincaseswherethereissomesignificantuncertaintyastotheprojectedearningspathoftheclaimant.InvariablytheyinvolvetheCourtawardingalumpsumofdamagesonabroadbrushapproachbasis.TheCourtsmayadoptamultiplier/multiplicandapproachinitiallyandthenreviewthatsteppingbackhavingregardtotherisksanduncertaintiesontheevidence.

19. ThedistinctionbetweenawardsmadeunderSmith v Manchester CorporationandBlamire v South Cumbria Health HA[1993]PIQRQ1arethatthelattermaybeappropriatewheretheuncertaintiesofacasemadebythemultiplier/multiplicandareunworkable,whereasaSmith v Manchesterawardseekstocompensateaclaimforthepossibilitythatatsomepointinfuturehe/shewilllosetheirjobandsufferahandicaponthelabourmarket.Theycompensatedifferentheadsofloss.Itispossibletohaveacasewhereajudgemakesanawardofboth.

20. InBullock v Atlas Ward Structures Limited[2008]EWCACiv194aclaimantdevelopeddermatitisasaconsequenceofhisworkasapaintsprayerrequiringhimtoceaseworkinginthatprofession.Heclaimedlossofearningsonamultiplier/multiplicandbasisfortheshortfallofapproximately£5,000perannumashewasnowworkingasawindowcleaner.InadditionheclaimedaSmith v Manchesteraward.ThedefendantallegedthatthereweresignificantuncertaintiesandadvocatedaBlamireapproach.Thejudgeagreedandawarded£50,000loss

7

PERSONAL INJURY

ofearningsplusa1yearSmithandManchester.Bothsidesappealed.OnappealtheCourtofAppealsubstitutedafigureof£90,000fortheBlamireawardandtheSmithandManchesterawardwasnotinterferedwith.KeenLJsaid:

“Merely because there are uncertainties about the future does not of itself justify departure from that well established method. Judges should be slow to resort to the broad brush Blamire approach, unless they really have no alternative.”

21. InWoodward v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust[2012]EWHC2167(QB)HHJStuartBakerfoundthattherewere“fartoomanyimponderables”totaketheconventionalapproachandfoundinsteadthataBlamireawardwasappropriate.

Judicial Tinkering

22. However,evenundertheOgden6regimetheCourt’sapproachhasnotalwaysledtoconsistentcompensationforclaimants.6FocussingonthreecasesitispossibletoshowhowtheCourtshaveadoptedinconsistentapproaches:

(i) Conner v BradmanEWHC2789[2007];

(ii) Hunter v MODNIQB43[2007];

(iii) Lee-Smith v EvansEWHC134[Q.B.][2008].

Ineachofthesecasestheclaimantsworkedinmanualemploymentandsufferedinjuriestotheirlegswithsubsequentimpairmenttomobility.VictoriaWassanalysedtheCourt’sapproachtoreductionfactors(employmentrisksandaveragesforbroadlydefinedgroupsofworkingageindividuals)andfoundasfollows:

(i) Connor:thereductionfactorwasreducedfrom40%to20%;

(ii) Hunter:thereductionfactorwasreducedfrom78%to33%;

(iii) Lee-Smith:thereductionfactorwasreducedfrom41%to35%.

23. OverallVictoriaWass’scriticismoftheCourt’sapproachwasthatthereductionfactorsprovidedforinTablesA-Dalreadyincludedanyallowancesforeffectsofseverity,impairmentandtransferabilityofskillswhichwereassociatedwithgainingemployment.Inshort,it

8

PERSONAL INJURY

appearsthatWasswascautioninglawyersagainsttinkeringtoomuchwiththereductionfactors.

24. Theresultanteffecthasmeantithasbecomemoredifficulttovaluecertaintypesofclaimsbutespeciallythoseinvolvinganongoingpartiallossofearnings(whereadifferent,lowermultiplierisappliedtotheresidualearningcapacity)orwheretheclaimanthasremainedinemploymentandappearstosuffernoactuallossofearnings.

Update: Ward v Allies and Morrisons Architects

25. Theclaimantwasamodelmakerwithafirstclassdegree.Shesufferedaninjurywhilstonashorttermplacementinwhichtheindexfingerofherleft(non-dominant)handwascutoffandhermiddlefingerdislocated.Herindexfingerwasre-attachedandshemadeaconsiderablerecovery.Theclaimant’scasewasthatshewouldnownolongerbeabletoworkasamodelmakerintheatresorintheperformingarts.However,theCourtwasnotsatisfiedthattheclaimantwouldnotbeabletoobtainmodelmakingworkforarchitectsatasimilarlevelofremunerationandfoundthatshewas“notthemostreliableofhistorians”.

26. Theunchallengedmedicalevidencewasthatshesufferedhypersensitivityandthattheindexfingerwaslargelycosmeticbutthattherestofthehandwasentirelynormalwithnormalgripstrength,i.e.shehadlostsomeofherformerdexteritybutnotmuch.

27. TheCourtwasnotsatisfiedthattheclaimantwouldbeunabletocarryoutherambitionofbeingamodelmakerintheperformingarts.Hermajorproblemhadbeenthefactthatshehadbeenoutofcirculationforaperiodof4yearsinanindustrywhichisdifficulttogetstartedinunlessdoorswereopenedorcontractsengaged.Thejudgeconcludedthattheclaimantcouldadvanceinanotherrewardingcareerasanarchitecturalmodelmakerwhichwouldproveequallyrewardingtoherdesiredcareerofbeingamodelmakerintheperformingarts.Accordingly,hemadeaBlamireawardinthesumof£30,000.

28. Anumberofargumentswereadvancedonappealbutthetwokeyissueswere:

(i) whenisitappropriatetouseaBlamireapproachasopposedtoOgden6?

(ii) isdisabilitythedeterminingfactorindecidingtousetheOgden6Tables?

29. AsregardstheBlamireissue,theCourthadheardevidencefromtheclaimant,herformertutoratUniversityandaseniorassociateatthedefendant’sfirm.Hewasnotsatisfiedthathe

9

PERSONAL INJURY

hadsufficientevidenceastowhattheappellanthadlostorwhatshewaslikelytoearninthefuturewithherinjuries.

30. TheclaimantarguedonappealthatthejudgehaderredinlawbyfailingtoadoptanOgdenmultiplicand/multiplierapproach.TheCourtofAppeal,atparagraph25,agreedwiththetrialjudge’sviewthattheevidencewasuncertainonthefollowingissues:

(i) whethertheappellantwouldhavesucceededinbecomingatheatricalmodelmaker;

(ii) whethershewouldremaininthatpositionthroughoutherworkingcareer;

(iii) whatlevelofremunerationshewouldhaveachievedinthatoccupation;

(iv) whetherthephysicalorpsychiatricrecoveryoftheappellantwassuchthatshecoulddoeitherthejobofthetheatricalmodelmakerorotherjobsasamodelmakeraftertheaccident;

(v) whethertherewaslikelytobeanydifferenceinearningsbetweenthetwojobroles.

31. TheCourtofAppealheldinthosecircumstancesthejudgewas“driven”toadoptingaBlamireapproach.

32. TheclaimantarguedonappealthatitwasnecessarytodeterminewhethershewasregardedasdisabledbeforeconcludingwhethertheOgden6Tablesweretobeusedornot.TheCourtofAppealrejectedthisargumentholdingthatthedeterminationastowhethertheclaimantwasdisabledwasnotthedeterminingfactorintheapplicationoftheOgden6Table.Itwasnotanautomatictrigger.Itquotedparagraph14oftheIntroductionoftheOgdenTableswhichstatesthat“therewouldbesituationswhereitwillbeappropriatetousethefactorssetoutinSectionBTablestocalculateaclaimant’sresidualearningcapacityonamultiplier/multiplicandbasis.However,inmanycasesitwouldbeappropriatetoincreaseorreducethediscountinthetablestotakeaccountofthenatureoftheparticularclaimant’sdisabilities.TherewillalsobesomecaseswheretheSmith v Manchester CorporationorBlamireapproachremainsapplicable.Theremaystillbecaseswhereaprecisemathematicalapproachisinapplicable.”

33. LordJusticeAikensheldthatgiventhiscommentarythemerefactthataclaimantcouldestablishthattheyweredisableddidnotautomaticallyleadtotheapplicationofanOgden6approach.Moreover,inhisview,hewouldnothaveconsideredtheclaimanttobedisabledwithinthemeaningoftheIntroductionprovidedtotheOgdenTablesatparagraph35whichstates:

10

PERSONAL INJURY

“The definition of employed/not employed, disabled/not disabled and educational attainment used in this analysis and which should be used for determining which factors to apply to the multipliers to allow for contingencies other than mortality are as follows:

......

Disabled: a person is to be classified as disabled if all three of the following conditions in relation to the ill-health or disability are met:

— has either a progressive illness or an illness which has lasted or is expected to last for over a year;

— satisfies the Disability Discrimination Act’s definition that the impact of disability substantially limits the person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities;

and

— their condition affects either the kind or the amount of paid work they can do.

Not Disabled:

— all others.”

Analysis of Ward v Allies: Learning the Lessons

Lesson 1

34. ThefirstlessontobelearnedfromthecaseofWardistheimportanceofprovidingtotheCourtdetailedandpersuasiveevidenceuponwhichthecontentionsastolossofearningsarebased.Itcanbedifficultforclaimantstoestablishacareerlossofearningsclaim,especiallywhentheyareyoung,buttheuseofcomparatorevidence,employmentconsultantsandwitnessevidencefromtheprofessionitselfoughttobeprovidedtotheCourtiftheclaimantisgoingtomountaseriousargumentastothoselosses.

Lesson 2

11

PERSONAL INJURY

35. Indeterminingwhethertheclaimantisdisabledornotitisalwaysimportanttoaskthisofthemedicalexpert.ItdoesnotappearthatthatwasspecificallydoneinMrsWard’scase.

36. ThetestisnowassetoutundertheEqualityAct2010,thisisimportantbecausetheformerGovernmentdecidedtodroptherequirementintheDisabilityDiscriminationAct1995that,foranimpairmenttobeconsideredtoaffectaperson’sabilitytocarryoutnormalday-to-dayactivities,itmustaffectoneormorespecified“capacities”–namelymobility;manualdexterity;physicalcoordination;continence;abilitytolift,carryorotherwisemoveeverydayobjects;speech;hearingoreyesight;memoryorabilitytoconcentrate;learnorunderstand;orperceptionoftheriskofphysicaldanger(para4(1),Schedule1oftheDisabilityDiscriminationAct).IntheGovernment’sviewthislist“servedlittleornopurposeinhelpingtoestablishwhethersomeoneisdisabledintheeyesofthelaw,andwasanunnecessaryextrabarriertodisabledpeopleintakingcasesincourtsandtribunals”(para11.53,“TheEqualityBill–GovernmentResponsetoConsultation”,July2008(Cm7454)).

37. AccordingtotheexplanatoryacttotheEqualityAct2010“thischangewillmakeiteasierforsomepeopletodemonstratethattheymeetthedefinitionofadisabledperson.Itwillassistthosewhocurrentlyfinditdifficulttoshowthattheirimpairmentadverselyaffectstheirabilitytocarryoutanormalday-to-dayactivitywhichinvolvesoneofthesecapacities”(para682).ItisimportantinconsideringOgden6typecasesthattheissueofdisabilityisproperlydeterminedbythemedicalexpertsandthattheyaregivenappropriateguidancebywayofexplanatorynotestothelegislationand/oranyrelevantcases,forexample,onthedefinitionofsubstantialimpairment.

Lesson 3

38. WardremindspractitionersthatinorderforOgden6tobeengagedthereareeffectivelythreetriggers:

(i) IstheClaimantdisabled?

(ii) Whatisthelikelypatternoftheclaimant’semployment(pre-accident);

(iii) Whatisthelikelypatternoftheclaimant’semployment(post-accident).

Aclaimantwillhavetoestablishtheirevidenceonallofthesegrounds.Clearlythisisgoingtobefertilegroundfordefendantstoseektocreateconfusionortodeconstructandunpicktheclaimant’scasesoastogivetheimpressionofuncertainty,seethemattersraisedintheCourtofAppeal’sJudgmentatparagraph25.

12

PERSONAL INJURY

Lesson 4

39. GivenAikensLJ’sviewthatdisabilityisnotthedeterminingfactorfortheapplicationoftheOgden6Tables,practitionersshouldtakecarenottoassumethatthatwillbetheinevitableresult.However,itisimportanttonotethatatparagraph20theCourtofAppealheld:

“It is common ground that the multiplicand/multiplier methodology and the tables and guidance in the current edition of Ogden should normally be applied when making an award of damages for future loss of earnings, unless the judge really has no alternative.”

ThisisarestatementoftheprinciplepropoundedinBullockandconfirmsthattheOgden6methodisthepreferredmethodoftheCourts.

Lesson 5

40. Oneoftheissuesthatledtouncertaintyinthetrialjudge’smindwasthefactthattheworkundertakenbytheclaimantwasfreelanceworkwithnoguaranteeofpermanencyandbyitsnaturewastemporary.Thismaypresentagreaterdegreeofriskforclaimantswhoareself-employediftheyarenotabletoestablishadegreeofcertaintyabouttheirfutureemploymentoncontractsortheprovisionofworkonalong-termbasis.

41. Furthermore,itseemsthatifotherCourtsweretoadoptasimilarapproachtothetrialjudgeinWard’scasethenchildrenand/oryoungpersonsarelikelytofinditmuchmoredifficulttoprovetheirfuturelossesbyreasonofthefactthatthereisagreaterdegreeofuncertaintyabouttheirfuture.Thisunderlinestheneedtoprepareapackageofevidenceinsupportoftheclaimant’sclaim.Ifthatevidenceismissing,onthebasisofWard,itwillnotbeanunfairconclusiontodrawthattheearningspositionissouncertainthataBlamireawardisjustified.

Lesson 6

42. Interestingly,atparagraph26theCourtofAppealappearstoleavethedooropenforahybridformofaBlamireaward.TheCourtheldatparagraph28:

“Mr Huckle does not suggest that, if the judge was correct to use the Blamire approach, nonetheless the amount of the lump sum awarded for loss of future earnings was unreasonably low because it failed to take account of the appellant’s disability. That submission was not advanced by any of the grounds of appeal or in his written oral argument.”

13

PERSONAL INJURY

ThisappearstoleavethedoorajarforclaimantswhoaregenuinelydisabledtoarguethatevenifaBlamireawardismade,someformofupliftorincreaseinthestandardawardoughttobemadetoreflectthefactthattheyaredisabled(asisprovidedforwithintheOgden6Tables).

Conclusions

43. Lastmonthheraldedthearrivalofthe7thEditionoftheOgdenTables.Asregardsfuturelossofearningstherewerelimitedchangestothemultipliers,butitisanticipatedthatthe8thEditionoftheOgdenTablesisgoingtoincludesomesignificantrevisionand/orguidancefromtheOgdenworkingpartyonthecalculationoffuturelossofearningsespeciallynowthatVictoriaWasshasjoinedtheOgdenworkingparty.

44. ThemethodbywhichtheCourtsassessfuturelossofearningscontinuestobeamovablefeastanditremainstobeseenwhethertheapproachoftheCourtsorpractitionersissimplifiedfollowingthemoredetailedguidanceanticipatedontheseissuesafterthepublicationofthe8thEditionoftheOgdenTables.

By Michael Lemmy & Matthew Snarr

9 St John Street Manchester

M3 4DN

November 2012

Endnotes1 Theauthorsacknowledgethepublicationofthe7thEditionoftheOgdenTablesinOctober2012.Forthesakeof

easeofunderstandingallreferenceswithinthisarticletoOgden6aretobeunderstoodinthatlight.Allexamplesare

calculatedusingthe7thEditionOgdenTables.

2 SeeMoeliker v A Reyrolle & Co Ltd[1977]1WLR132.

3 SeeMcGregoronDamages,18thEdition,Chapter35-095–35-099

4 SeeKemp&KempChapter9-026

5 Interestingly,HHJMcKenna,inthecaseofHindmarch v Virgin Airways[2011]EWHC1227(QB),acasethatwas

heardtogetherwithEvans,awardedHindmarch1year’sSmith v Manchesterawardincircumstanceswhereshewas

earningmorethanshedidasabeautytherapistandwheretherewaslittleevidenceofanyjobinsecurity.

6 Foramoredetailedanalysissee“TheImpactofJudicialDiscretionintheApplicationofNewOgden6Multipliers”

byVictoriaWassand“Ogden6AdjustmentstoWorkingLifeMultipliers”byChrisMeltonQ.C.

14

PERSONAL INJURY

GerardMcdermottQC

NicholasHinchliffeQC

PaulGilroyQC

MarkHillQC

ChristopherKennedyQC

TerenceRigby

NigelGrundy

AlistairBower

IanLittle

KarimSabry

DrAnthonyHoward

KirstenBarry

GrahamBailey

MichaelLemmy

BrianMcCluggage

KatieNowell

KathrineMallory

JaneMabon

ZoëThompson

MatthewHaisley

LucindaLeeming

VictoriaRigby

KirstyMcKinlay

RebeccaEeley

MatthewSnarr

RussellDickinson

IanDenham

BenMorris

DanielNorthall

HannahHaines

RachaelLevene

RachaelLewis

WilliamHamilton

LenaAmartey

EmmaGreenhalgh

JasmineSkander

Personal Injury Barristers