Stephen Mays (a Protected Party by his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) v Drive Force (UK) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Deputy Master Hill |
| Judgment Date | 04 January 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 5 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ17P03420 |
| Date | 04 January 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 5 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Deputy Master Hill QC
Case No: HQ17P03420
Bernard Doherty (for the Claimant)
Ronald Walker QC (for the Defendant)
Hearing date: 5 December 2018
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para. 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Deputy Master Hill QC:
Introduction
This is a personal injury claim arising out of an accident the Claimant sustained on 12 June 2013, when he was working as a transporter lorry driver for the Defendant. On that day he was on top of the deck of the lorry above the cab. He leant on the top deck safety rail which unbeknown to him was defective. It snapped causing him to fall approximately 3 metres. The Defendant admitted liability through its insurers on 3 April 2014. The Claimant has sustained a traumatic brain injury and orthopaedic injuries as a result of his accident, which has had a catastrophic effect upon his life. He does not have capacity to conduct the litigation or manage his financial affairs. He has a clinical case manager, support workers and therapists working with him. He has been unable to return to paid employment since the accident and his marriage has broken down.
The case came before me on 5 December 2018 for a Costs and Case Management Conference. All matters were dealt with on that date, save for the issue of whether the parties should be granted permission to adduce expert evidence in the discipline of life expectancy. I directed that further written submissions should be made on that issue and those have now been provided and considered.
The Defendant argues that permission should be granted. The Claimant opposes that course.
It is pertinent to note that by agreement the Claimant has permission to rely on written evidence from a Consultant Neurologist, a Neuropsychologist, a Consultant Neuropsychiatrist, a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, a Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon, a Care and case management expert and a Deputy Cost expert. The Defendant has permission to rely on written evidence of a Consultant Neurologist, a Consultant Neuropsychologist, a Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon, a Care and case management expert and a Deputy Cost expert.
It is also relevant that the parties agree that this is a claim of substantial value, the Defendant suggesting that it is in the region of £1–2 million and the Claimant that it is over £2 million. The cost of instructing a life expectancy expert has been cost budgeted at around £15,000 per party. The Claimant does not oppose the instruction of life expectancy experts on proportionality grounds.
The Defendant's submissions
The Defendant's submissions can be summarised thus:
(i) If a Claimant has co-morbid conditions in addition to the index event that affect his life expectancy, the Court should have access to expert evidence on the issue. This was accepted by the Court of Appeal in Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS Trust v B (a child) [2002] PIQR Q10 and is an approach that has been followed in other cases such as Sarwar v Ali [2007] EWHC 274 (QB) (Lloyd-Jones J), Burton v Kingsbury [2007] EWHC 2091 (QB)(Flaux J) and Lewis v Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust [2007] 1 WLUK 628 (Sir Alistair MacDuff);
(ii) There are a range of factors in the Claimant's case which are potentially relevant to his life expectancy other than the accident itself. The Consultant Neurologists already instructed by the parties have both acknowledged this. Moreover, while the Defendant's Consultant Neurologist, Dr Oliver Foster, has given a view on the impact of the Claimant's smoking on his life expectancy, he made clear that he would defer to another expert on the issue of the impact of his ulcerative colitis on his life expectancy. He has also indicated that “ such reductions in life expectancy are not strictly additive and I would defer to life expectancy expertise with regard to quantification of his overall reduction in life expectancy”. Accordingly, the Neurologists are not able to fully address the life expectancy issue;
(iii) In contrast, in his report dated 21 June 2017, Professor Bowen-Jones has considered the impact on the Claimant's life expectancy of his cigarette smoking, his hypertension, his obesity and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carol Dodds (A protected party by her sister and litigation friend Janice Dodds) v Mohammad Arif
...offer an opinion at all or state that they require specific input from a life expectancy expert (see e.g. Mays v Drive Force (UK) Limited [2019] EWHC 5), or where they deploy, or wish to deploy statistical material, but disagree on the correct approach to it. This case does not, or does not......