Taylor v Prosol Facade Access Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | HHJ DAVID WILCOX |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 310 (TCC) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Docket Number | Case no: H202100 |
| Date | 28 January 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 310 (TCC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2A 2LL
His Honour Judge David Wilcox
Case no: H202100
LAWRENCE WEST (Instructed by Clement Jones) appeared for the Claimant
OLIVER TICCIATI (Instructed by various solicitors) appeared for the Defendant
(As Approved by Court)
(This transcript has been prepared without the assistance of any documents.)
Tuesday, 28th January 2003
The claimants are the administrators of the estate of Peter Docking, deceased. They bring this action on behalf of the estate of the deceased pursuant to the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1934 on behalf of the defendant, pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.
Peter Docking was employed by the 5 th defendant, Pall Mall, as a window cleaner. On 28 th April 1998 he was cleaning the windows of a nine-storey office building occupied by the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank Incorporation, the 6 th defendant, at 3 Lower Thames Street, London EC3. In order to gain access to the outside windows Mr Docking and his fellow employee were required to use a suspended access system, comprising a cradle suspended from a gantry which ran on parallel lines on the roof of the building. At 11:45 am on 22 nd April 1998 the cradle containing both men fell to the ground killing them.
As between the six defendants, liability issues have been agreed. There is no formal admission of liability, but the defendants have agreed to meet any award which this court may make on behalf of the deceased's partner and their dependant children. I have agreed that this is a proper way to deal with this case on behalf of the infants, and their mother consents.
The dependants are: Laura Jane Taylor, born on 30 th June 1968 who lived with Peter Docking from about 1990; secondly, Ellie Jane Docking, born 10 th May 1993, their first daughter; thirdly, Ginnie Lee Docking, born 23 rd January 1996, their second daughter. Peter Docking was born 1 st March 1967. He and Laura Taylor had already made arrangements to be married on 11 th July 1998; all the arrangements, catering arrangements, banns had been called, bridesmaids' dresses commissioned, rings engraved. I am satisfied that theirs had been a stable and long term relationship which would have continued in marriage.
The deceased's work record from June 1984 until April 1998 was somewhat chequered. The unchallenged evidence of Laura Taylor, however, is that there were no substantial periods of unemployment. The deceased changed his employment from time to time as is recorded in the Inland Revenue letter of 6 th November 1999. There are recorded periods of unemployment but I accept Miss Taylor's evidence that during these periods, although not recorded in that letter as employment, he also worked variously as a courier and road-sweeper. There is no evidence that he received any benefit during these periods which drives me to the conclusion that her evidence must be right about that.
As so often occurs when a young man matures, it is reflected in his attitude to both work and responsibility. Miss Taylor's unchallenged evidence is that when Ellie was born Peter Docking settled down, and was continuously and conscientiously in employment. I accept that evidence.
Miss Taylor's father is a black cab driver. The evidence indicates that the deceased had embarked upon acquiring, what is colloquially known as, 'the knowledge' in order to qualify as a black cab driver. He passed his ordinary driving test and in due course I am satisfied that he would have passed the carriage office tests, enabling him to become a black cab driver in the Metropolis. Whilst he was dyslexic and found reading and writing difficult, there is no basis, in my judgment, for concluding that this would have been a bar to his qualifying as a black cab driver. It would, of course, affect his ability to follow any employment requiring the preparation and use of documents – that would be necessary in any job involving more than very basic supervisory skills. It would have rendered the acquisition of route knowledge more difficult and thus slower. I observe that he had done some 400 out of the 600 routes involved in the acquisition of the required information for the carriage office 'knowledge' requirements. He had the solid support of his father-in-law to be, and I am satisfied that he would have qualified as a black cab driver by April 2000, the second anniversary of his death, and would have followed this occupation on a part-time basis supplementing his main earnings as a window cleaner.
There are figures provided by Paul Collins, accountants who specialise in the preparation of accounts for black cab taxi drivers who work part-time, as comparatives to indicate the probable earnings level had the deceased lived. Criticism is made of these figures by Mr Ticciati on the ground that one of the drivers is not an exact comparator, since he is an older driver. Nonetheless, I accept that these figures give a fair and reliable guide to what the deceased would have earned from this source, had he qualified.
His window cleaning occupied the time between 6 am and 2 pm. Afternoons, evenings, weekends and holidays would have been available to him as a taxi driver. The claimant's figure, which I accept, is a cautious and realistic estimate of the earnings that would have been earned from this source. At the time of his death, the deceased was earning £9,516 per annum net from his principle occupation. These modest earnings came about because of his relatively temporary status as a probationary window cleaner. The defendants accept that his earnings over a three-year period would have risen to the level of Mr Wright, who was his colleague in the cradle, and who also lost his life. Their contention is, however, that he would not have become a black cab driver. That contention, I reject. Mr Wright's earnings were £16,800 gross. Mr Wright had a modest supervisory responsibility. There is no reason why the deceased should not have been promoted to a similar level within several years. Dyslexia would not have been an impediment to this modest promotion.
The claimants contend that the multiplier, as at the date of death, for a man aged 31 years of age, and assuming a retirement at 65 years, should be 22.37 – which adjusted for facts other than mortality produces a multiplier of 21.7. The defendants submit that 20 is the appropriate multiplier, taking into account the possibility of unemployment; the risk that the marriage might have broken down, under the circumstances, not entitling the widow to support from him; and the further risk that Laura Taylor might have died before the deceased's 65 th birthday. I reject the submission that an adjustment should be made on account of unemployment; the deceased would have had the safety net of the second part-time employment as a taxi driver, such rendering such a risk, a remote risk. There is no evidential basis upon which I could conclude that the marriage would have failed: I accept that there existed a theoretical risk of Laura Taylor dying before the deceased. The deceased, of course, may well have followed employment as a taxi driver well after his 65 th birthday and retirement from his principle occupation. In my judgment, the appropriate multipliers are those contended for by the claimant, namely 21.7.
Ginnie was 2 1/4 years of age at the date of her father's death. Mr West submits that the multiplier should be 13.05, assuming that she would be dependant until 18 years. That assumption, in my judgment, is appropriate bearing in mind the pressures for children to remain in full-time education and training, and necessitating parental contribution. I do not consider that a reduction to 12.05 as contended for by the defendant is warranted, based upon the risks of unemployment and death.
I turn now to the issue relating to Laura Taylor's earnings and how they should be approached in the assessment of the dependency. The defendant maintains that Laura Taylor's earning capacity should be taken into account. She has not worked since the accident because of the psychological effects of the accident upon both her and the children.. Furthermore, there is no one to care for the children gratuitously as the father did if she takes full-time employment. It is conceded by the claimant that when Ginnie can go to and from school alone, it is reasonable to assume that Miss Taylor would be able to secure full-time employment. In assessing the financial dependency, regard is to be had to her actual earnings and not to a theoretical earning capacity measured by the pre-accident earnings.
Miss Taylor, in her written statement, asserts that at the time of the deceased's death she was earning £250 net per week. The pay record shows that she was working for a period shortly before his death on a part-time basis, and indeed for much of the earlier period, and earning an average of £91.28 per week, or £4,746.56 net per year. However, between February 1998 and 28 th April 1998 she worked full-time. She was paid for the months of May and June and then made redundant at the end of June – that is redundancy from her job as a credit controller with Cable & Wireless.
Had the deceased lived and achieved reasonable earnings as a qualified window cleaner and had followed part-time employment as a black cab driver, there would have been no one to look after the children whilst mother went out to work. With the husband earning reasonably she would not have had the economic imperative that she must go out to work and earn. She...
To continue reading
Request your trial