Eagle v Chambers

Factual and Procedural Background

On 22nd June 1989, the Plaintiff was struck by a car driven by the Defendant while walking in the middle of the road. Liability was determined in November 2002, with the Defendant found liable and the Plaintiff held 40% responsible for contributory negligence after an initial 60% apportionment was varied by the Court of Appeal in July 2003. The Plaintiff sustained severe brain damage. In December 2003, following trial and reserved judgment, the Defendant was ordered to pay damages totaling £1,499,268.13. Permission to appeal was initially refused.

The damages award included an annual cost of £66,000 for the Plaintiff’s future care regime, multiplied by 18.5 to reflect life expectancy and rehabilitation time, based on expert evidence favoring a privately funded enhanced care regime with a sleep-in night carer. The Plaintiff’s existing accommodation was found unsuitable, necessitating a further award of £215,265 for alternative accommodation.

Permission to appeal was later granted on multiple grounds, including the adequacy of the care cost calculations and the necessity of private funding. The Defendant sought to reduce the damages by arguing the care should remain publicly funded with only limited private top-up costs, and challenged the rehabilitation costs and accommodation award. The Court granted permission to appeal on these grounds.

The appeal involved applications to amend grounds and renew previously refused grounds. Some grounds were refused permission due to lack of evidence or absence of principle issues. The Court identified key issues for consideration, including rehabilitation costs, care regime and accommodation costs, benefits under the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, travelling expenses, NHS and Social Services provision of items, cigarette consumption costs, receiver costs, panel brokers' fees, interest for delay, and the necessity of a central control unit and cleaning costs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant should pay for the Plaintiff’s assessment and rehabilitation costs at the Kemsley Unit.
2. Whether the Plaintiff’s care regime should be privately funded or publicly provided, and the correct calculation of its cost.
3. The correct application and interpretation of benefits under Schedule 2 of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, including income support and mobility allowance.
4. The appropriateness of deductions for travelling expenses from past and future earnings.
5. Whether certain individual items (laundry, chiropody, Tena pads) would be provided by the NHS or Social Services and thus excluded from damages.
6. The recoverability of costs for increased cigarette consumption and wastage.
7. The necessity and cost of appointing a professional receiver versus a lay receiver for the Plaintiff’s damages fund.
8. The recoverability of panel brokers' fees incurred in managing the Plaintiff’s damages fund.
9. The appropriate interest deduction for delay in trial and payment of damages.
10. Whether a central control unit for the Plaintiff’s accommodation should be funded.
11. Whether additional cleaning costs should be awarded separately from care costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Ground 11 originally argued that £2,000 should be added to the annual care cost due to omissions in expert cost appendices, later amended to seek an increase of over £22,873.
• Challenged the judge’s refusal to award additional general damages and certain care costs.
• Asserted that the care regime should be privately funded and enhanced beyond the Defendant’s proposed state-funded top-up model.
• Contended that certain benefits should not reduce damages and that the Defendant improperly deducted income support from past earnings.
• Maintained that the Plaintiff should receive damages for increased cigarette wastage, but not for increased consumption.
• Argued for a professional receiver to manage the Plaintiff’s funds due to the complexity and duration involved.
• Contended that additional cleaning costs should be awarded separately as carers would not perform all necessary cleaning tasks.
• Disputed the refusal to award damages for a central control unit.

Respondent's Arguments

• Contended that the care regime should remain publicly funded with only limited private top-up costs for a manager and a four-hour care gap, as costed in expert Appendix A.
• Argued against increasing the care cost award based on untested or unexplored evidence regarding pay rises and training/entertainment costs.
• Conceded that the Defendant should pay for the assessment period at Kemsley but challenged payment for the subsequent nine-month rehabilitation course.
• Asserted that deductions for income support from past earnings were appropriate, though later conceded this point.
• Maintained that mobility allowance should be used by the Plaintiff to mitigate loss through the Motability Scheme, challenging the Plaintiff’s alternative transport claims.
• Argued that a lay receiver, specifically the Plaintiff’s mother with professional support, was appropriate and that the claimed professional receiver fees were excessive.
• Maintained that panel brokers’ fees should not be awarded as they represent investment management costs not compensable against the Defendant.
• Supported the judge’s refusal to award damages for the central control unit and additional cleaning, arguing carers performed necessary cleaning.
• Asserted that the delay in trial justified a seven-year deduction of interest due to Plaintiff’s advisers’ conduct.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed review of the evidence and legal principles concerning each identified issue. It upheld the trial judge’s decision that the Defendant was liable for the costs of the assessment and the subsequent nine-month rehabilitation at the Kemsley Unit, reasoning that despite the late referral and lack of opportunity for the Defendant to assess the benefit, the rehabilitation was likely to yield modest but significant improvements affecting the Plaintiff’s care needs.

Regarding the care regime, the court accepted the judge’s finding that a privately funded, more directive and structured care regime was necessary, rejecting the Defendant’s argument for continuation of a publicly funded top-up scheme. The court declined to revisit the judge’s acceptance of expert evidence on care costs and the use of a sleep-in carer, including the accommodation adjustment.

The court interpreted Section 17 of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 broadly, holding that benefits identified in Schedule 2 must be disregarded in assessing damages, including future benefits, thus rejecting the Defendant’s attempt to require the Plaintiff to use mobility allowance to mitigate losses.

The deduction of 15% for travelling expenses from past earnings was not disturbed, as the court found no binding rule against such deduction and considered the issue minor in the overall context.

The court found that the Defendant failed to prove that certain individual items would be provided by the NHS or Social Services, allowing the appeal to restore claims for those items.

On cigarette consumption, the court upheld the award for past wastage but declined to compensate for increased consumption, finding insufficient medical evidence that the brain injury compelled increased smoking.

Regarding the appointment of a receiver, the court agreed with the trial judge that the Plaintiff’s mother could act as receiver with professional assistance, rejecting the need for a professional receiver at the claimed cost, based on evidence and submissions from the Court of Protection.

The court followed the reasoning in Wells v Wells and related authorities to refuse an award for panel brokers’ fees, concluding that such investment management costs are not recoverable damages, regardless of the Plaintiff’s status as a patient.

The judge’s refusal to award interest for a seven-year delay caused by the Plaintiff’s advisers was upheld, as the delay was inexcusable and not attributable to the Defendant.

The court accepted the judge’s discretion to refuse damages for a central control unit and additional cleaning, although it allowed the appeal on cleaning costs due to lack of evidence that carers would perform all necessary cleaning tasks.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal DISMISSED the Defendant’s appeal on the major issues of rehabilitation costs, the necessity of a privately funded care regime, the interpretation of benefits under the 1997 Act, and the interest deduction for delay. The Plaintiff’s appeal was ALLOWED in part to increase awarded costs for certain individual items and cleaning.

The decision confirms the principle that defendants must fund privately arranged care regimes where necessary, even if social services currently provide care, and that benefits under the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 are to be disregarded broadly in damages assessments. It also clarifies that panel brokers’ fees are not recoverable as damages, even for patients under the Court of Protection, distinguishing the claimant’s investment management costs from compensable losses.

The ruling affirms judicial discretion in awarding interest deductions for delay attributable to the claimant’s advisers and underscores the importance of timely litigation conduct. No new precedent was set beyond the application and clarification of existing principles.