Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from an order dated 8 December 2010 made by HHJ Murfitt following a trial held on 27-29 July 2010. The Plaintiff suffered serious injuries in a road traffic accident on 13 September 2005 when a car driven by the Defendant collided with the Plaintiff on his motorbike. The Defendant admitted liability. The Plaintiff, a retired telecommunications manager aged 62 at the time, sustained significant injuries including a compound complex fracture of the lower right leg, resulting in disability affecting mobility and driving ability.
The trial judge awarded damages totaling £312,581.70 for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, special damages, and interest, including a provisional award allowing for future claims should amputation become necessary. The Plaintiff appeals the assessment of damages relating to future special damages: (a) increased transport costs due to taxi use for visiting family and friends, and (b) enhanced home maintenance and repair costs, which the Plaintiff claims he can no longer perform himself and must pay others to carry out.
The Plaintiff was represented at trial by counsel but now appears in person. The Defendant disputes the appeal, contending no question of law arises, the sums awarded were appropriate, and that claims for additional taxi costs and enhanced home maintenance were either unpleaded, unproven, or unsupported by admissible evidence.
Permission to appeal was granted on two grounds: the claim for future taxi fares and the claim for enhanced home maintenance and repair costs. Applications were made by the Plaintiff to include medical records in the appeal bundle and to adduce fresh evidence on future taxi fares; the latter was refused due to lack of justification for late evidence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of damages for future transport costs, specifically taxi fares for longer journeys.
- Whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of damages for enhanced future home maintenance and repair costs, including the admissibility and weight of expert evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The award for future taxi costs is unjustly low; actual taxi fares, such as for a one-way trip to visit the Plaintiff’s son, could be significantly higher than the notional figure used by the judge.
- The award for enhanced home maintenance and repair costs is insufficient. The Plaintiff contends that he will incur increased costs due to inability to perform tasks himself, and that the judge failed to properly consider expert evidence supporting this claim.
Appellee's Arguments
- The appeal raises no question of law and the sums awarded were not wrong.
- The claim for additional taxi costs was not pleaded or proved at trial.
- The claims for enhanced home maintenance and repair costs overlap with other items and lack adequate, admissible evidence, particularly invoices or relevant bills.
- The expert report relied upon by the Plaintiff was outside the scope of the expert’s appointment and was not properly admitted or considered by the trial judge.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Regarding future taxi fares, the court noted that although the claim was not pleaded in the schedule of damages, the trial judge accepted the need for some award based on a notional figure of £300 per annum multiplied by a multiplier of 6.73, resulting in £2,019. The court found the judge’s approach reasonable given the absence of hard data on taxi fares. The Plaintiff’s argument that the figure was too low was rejected as the judge had no evidential basis to award a higher sum.
On the issue of future home maintenance and repair costs, the court identified a serious procedural irregularity. The expert report relied upon by the Plaintiff was prepared by a joint expert architect whose appointment was limited to reporting on adaptations to the Plaintiff’s home. However, the expert provided evidence on matters beyond this scope, including costings for maintenance and repairs. The trial judge neither excluded nor admitted this evidence explicitly and failed to give reasons for rejecting the larger sums claimed under this head. The Defendant challenged the admissibility and relevance of the report, noting lack of supporting invoices and overlap with other claims. The court concluded that the evidential position was unclear and unsatisfactory, rendering the trial judge’s decision on this head unjust.
Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal on the home maintenance and repair costs, ordering a retrial before a different judge with liberty for both parties to call fresh expert evidence. The appeal on the taxi fares was dismissed.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was to ALLOW the appeal in part and DISMISS the appeal in part. Specifically:
- The appeal against the award for future taxi fares was dismissed, affirming the trial judge’s assessment as reasonable given the evidence.
- The appeal against the award for enhanced future home maintenance and repair costs was allowed due to procedural irregularity and inadequate evidential basis, resulting in a remittal for retrial on this issue.
The direct effect is that the damages awarded for home maintenance and repair costs are set aside pending a fresh determination. No broader legal precedent was established beyond correcting the procedural and evidential errors in this case.