Doyle v Wallace
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 1998 |
| Date | 18 June 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Otton and Lord Justice Chadwick
Damages - loss of earnings - chance of a job lost - quantification
Damages were recoverable in a personal injury action for loss of earnings from a job for which the plaintiff, had she not suffered injury, might possibly have become qualified. They should be assessed by the court evaluating the chance and applying a percentage amount as a means of quantification.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment when, inter alia, affirming in part an award of damages made by Judge Young, sitting as a High Court judge on March 7, 1997, against the defendant, Courtney Wallace, in respect of injuries in a road accident in 1989 suffered by the plaintiff, Julia Marie Doyle, suing by her mother and next friend, Elsa Doyle.
Mr John Leighton-Williams, QC and Mr Christopher Goddard for the defendant; Mr Christopher Purchas, QC and Mr Colin Nixon for the plaintiff.
LORD JUSTICE OTTON said that the plaintiff's case for both past and future loss of earnings was that she would have qualified and been employed as a drama teacher. Alternatively, it was argued, that failing qualifications as a teacher she would have obtained clerical or administrative work. It was contended that her chances of becoming a teacher were not less than 50 per cent, that her past loss should be assessed on the basis of allowing her a 50 per cent chance of becoming a teacher and her loss assessed on the basis of taking a middle figure between earnings as a teacher and earnings in a clerical capacity.
The judge posed the question: "Would she have succeeded in obtaining the qualification and would she have got a job?" He took the view that it was 50/50. He also took the view that the best way to reflect that was to adopt the approach suggested by counsel for the plaintiff.
For the defendant, it was submitted that the judge's reasoning was flawed in fact and in law. The judge, it was said, should have decided what probably would have happened and it was not probable that the plaintiff would have qualified and been employed as a drama teacher and accordingly earnings as a drama teacher should have been disregarded. Counsel cited a passage from the speech of Lord Bridge of Harwich in Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority sum nom Hotson v FitzgeraldELR ((1987) AC 750, 782).
There was a key distinction between a plaintiff who had to prove on a balance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregg v. Scott, (2005) 330 N.R. 1 (HL)
...[paras. 43, 108]. Smith v. National Health Service Litigation, [2001] Lloyd's Med. Rep. 90, refd to. [para. 45]. Doyle v. Wallace, [1998] P.I.Q.R. Q. 146, refd to. [paras. 67, Kranz v. M'Cutcheon (1920), 18 Ontario WN 395, refd to. [para. 69]. Kenyon v. Bell, [1953] S.C. 125, refd to. [para......
-
Manuel Mathieu v Tony Martin Hinds
...see, for example, Anderson v Davis [1993] PIQR Q87 (loss of a two-thirds chance of becoming a principal lecturer), Doyle v Wallace [1998] PIQR Q146 Q87 (loss of a 50% chance of becoming a teacher), Langford v Hebran [2001] PIQR Q13 (loss of various chances of escalating success as a kickbox......
-
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd
...this factual issue I have been referred to and considered Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons (A Firm) [1995] 1 WLR 1612 and Doyle v Wallace [1998] PIQR Q147. NIGEL BAKER Q.C. ...
-
Gregg v Scott
...what might hypothetically have happened (either before or after the trial) if the claimant had not been injured: see Doyle v Wallace [1998] PIQR Q146, in which the loss of earnings caused by the injury would have been greater if the claimant had qualified as a drama teacher. 68 This princip......