Bullock v Atlas Ward Structures Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Ward,Lord Justice Keene,Lord Justice Richards |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Civ 194 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2007/0763&A |
| Date | 17 January 2008 |
[2008] EWCA Civ 194
Lord Justice Ward
Lord Justice Keene and
Lord Justice Richards
Case No: B3/2007/0763&A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM SCARBOROUGH COUNTY COURT
(RECORDER SALTER)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr C Williams (instructed by Messrs Berrymans Lace Mawer) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr G Vickers (instructed by Messrs Rowley Dickinson) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This appeal gives rise to questions relating to the awards of damages for future losses suffered by a workman who had the misfortune to suffer personal injury in the course of his employment. More specifically, the questions which arise are, first, should future loss of earnings have been calculated by applying the conventional multiply and multiplicand? Or was the matter so uncertain that the court should adopt the broad-brush approach, as in Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority [1993] PI QR 1, and, if so, what was the appropriate Blamire figure? The second issue is whether a Smith and Manchester award should be permitted, and again, if so, how much is appropriate under that head?
The bald facts can be quite shortly stated. The claimant, Mr Martin Bullock, is a few days short of his 36 th Birthday. On 21 June 2004 he began employment with the defendant, Atlas Ward Structures Limited, as a paint sprayer. As early as July 2004 he had begun to develop red irritable rashes around his neck and face. He was soon affected over most of his body. He had contracted allergic industrial contact dermatitis, being strongly allergic to the epoxy resins in the paint he was using. It was so bad that by December 2004 he had to stop work as a paint sprayer and tried other types of work for the defendant, for example as a welder, but this too aggravated his skin and he did not work for the defendant after February 2005. In May 2005, his employment was terminated. In October 2005 he brought his claim for damages. Although negligence was at first denied, liability was admitted in March 2007, shortly before the trial of his claim and so, at that trial the judge had to decide quantum only. The trial was heard by Mr Recorder Salter on 22 and 23 February 2007. Giving judgment extempore on the second day, he awarded the claimant damages with interest in the total amount of £113,168.15 made up under the following heads. First, general damages, including interest, for the dermatitis and a consequent depressive illness which inflicted the claimant until June 2005: £12,000. For past loss of earnings, a) from December 2004 to May 2005 when he ceased employment with the defendant: £3,016; b) from May 2005 to January 2007, about the time of the trial, to which interest was added: £26,42Thirdly, compensation for past services, such as his gardening and do-it-yourself activities in the home, calculated at £4.50 at week, with interest: £540.28. Fourthly, there were other agreed losses of £850. Fifth: future loss of earnings and loss of services, taken together: £50,000; and finally, six, disadvantage in the labour market £18,500.
The defendant appeals, with permission granted by Hughes LJ, against the last two awards of future loss of earnings and the disadvantage in the labour market. The claimant had to seek permission, which we granted at the beginning of this hearing, to cross appeal against the judge's composite award of £50,000 for their future loss. The Recorder dealt with the claim in this way. He found the claimant to be “a straightforward and impressive witness”. He accepted he had “an impressive record to continuous employment since leaving school at the age of 16”. He had applied unsuccessfully for a number of jobs, as to which the Recorder said, at paragraph 31 of his judgment:
“He has got a good work record. I believe that he has done all that he could and what is more all that a reasonable man could have done to obtain work. He has been supported throughout this by a loyal fiancé who herself has had to work very, very hard.
I do not accept the criticism of the window cleaning round. Rather I believe, having heard and seen this witness, that it demonstrates considerable initiative as I would expect of a man of his type.
I have therefore reached the view that he has mitigated his loss looking at the evidence overall.”
That reference to window cleaning relates to the fact that, by September 2005, the claimant had decided in his struggle for work that he would take over a window cleaning business that had previously belonged to an uncle who had become ill some years previously, so that the business had really fallen away. Having seen the books of the uncle, they decided they would try their hand at window cleaning and had begun to do so.
The Recorder also noted that, among other efforts to find a living, the claimant had tried, as he put it, to add another string to his bow by taking a heavy goods vehicle drivers' course. He did that from September 2005 to March 2006. He passed the test on the second attempt to get a class 2 licence, but as the Recorder noted in paragraph 26:
“…sadly, despite all reasonable efforts, he was unsuccessful in getting a driving job, and so he continued, as he had been doing, the window cleaning round but obviously this was seasonal work.”
The family were in serious financial difficulties as a result of this accident. Their mortgage was in arrears. It has not been revealed to us whether it was or was not with Northern Rock, but I do not suppose that materially matters. The result is that the fiancé, Miss Chamberlain, applied for a night shift job, which she began in 200The claimant stayed at home to look after the children, particularly the youngest who is not yet at school, and so that too restricted his ability to work and build up the window cleaning business. Callum, the boy, was due to start school in September 2007.
The Recorder dealt with his past services and accepted that he could not do the gardening and decorating because of his dermatitis. He awarded damages, having unreservedly accepted the claimant's evidence on the issue, at the rate of £4.50 an hour, and to the date of the trial that came, as I have indicated, to something over £500. Issue was really joined on the future loss. The claimant's approach to that was that damages should be awarded for three periods. The first was from January 2007 to September 2007, the date when the boy was to start school. Then the period from September 2007 to March 2008, during which he was to build up his business as a window cleaner. If he had not achieved sufficient success, measured by the achievement of average earnings as a window cleaner by March 2008, he accepted he would go off and find employment elsewhere in such avenues as were available to him.
On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ab Against The English Province Of The Congregation Of Christian Brothers
...British Transport Commissioners v Gourlay [1956] AC 186 at p 212, FZO, A v Glasgow City Council, Bullock v Atlas Structures Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 194 103 at paragraphs 19 to 21 and Robertson CB v Anderson 1996 SC 217 at p 244A, that the injuries caused by the abuse and the associated addi......
-
Manuel Mathieu v Tony Martin Hinds
...a very rough estimate of the damages” (per Balcombe LJ at Q5–6, in part quoting Lord Reid in Gourley). 161 In Bullock v Atlas Ward [2008] EWCA Civ 194, the Court of Appeal made it clear that judges should not adopt the Blamire approach too easily. At [19]–[21] Keene LJ held that “[a]ll ass......
-
Alistair Craig Inglis v Ministry of Defence
...There is no unusual factor to consider in this career model. Should the award be on the basis of Smith v Manchester? 195 In Bullock v Atlas Ward Structures Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 194 the claimant lost his work as a paint sprayer because he developed a skin reaction to the paint. The issue in ......
-
Warren v Harvey
...was not appropriate here because the uncertainties were not so great. He relied on two passages from the more recent case of Bullock v Atlas Ward Structures Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 194. In this case the judge was faced with uncertainties as to whether or not the claimant would have earned the a......