- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Collett v Smith & Anor
Factual and Procedural Background
On 1 May 2003, the Plaintiff, then aged 18, was playing for Company A's Reserves team in a match against the second Defendant's Reserves team when he was tackled by the first Defendant. The tackle was high and "over the ball," resulting in the Plaintiff suffering a fracture of the tibia and fibula in his right leg. The Plaintiff claimed damages for personal injury and consequential losses due to the negligence of the first Defendant, with the second Defendant vicariously liable. The claim included loss of earnings from the deprivation of a chance to pursue a professional football career and later as a football manager or coach. Liability was initially disputed, but shortly before a preliminary trial, the Defendants admitted negligence, and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff by consent on 7 February 2007, with damages to be assessed.
Damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and loss of congenial employment, as well as for gratuitous care provided by the Plaintiff's parents, were agreed. Actual earnings up to trial were also agreed. The remaining disputes concerned damages for past and future loss of earnings and loss of pension. The court was tasked with determining whether, but for the Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff would have succeeded in a professional football career, at what levels and remuneration, and for how long, as well as whether he would have had a chance at a football management or coaching career.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, but for the Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff would have succeeded in making a career in professional football, including the level(s) of the professional game, remuneration, and career duration;
- The level(s) of remuneration the Plaintiff is likely to receive from future employment;
- Whether, but for the Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff would have had a chance of a career in football management or coaching and whether he should be compensated for loss of that chance.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Davies v Taylor [1974] AC 207 | Principles governing assessment of damages for loss of a chance | Referred to as establishing principles for applying discounts to damages where there is uncertainty about the chance materialising |
| Doyle v Wallace [1998] PIQR Q 147 | Principles governing assessment of damages for loss of a chance | Applied alongside Davies v Taylor to clarify approach to damages assessment |
| Langford v Hebran [2001] PIQR Q13 | Assessment of lost chance damages in a sporting context | Discussed methodology for quantifying damages based on percentage chances of different career scenarios materialising |
| Appleton v LEL Safety [2007] EWHC 631 (QBD) | Application of percentage chance approach to lost sporting careers | Considered in relation to findings on past and future losses on balance of probabilities and percentage chance basis |
| Watson v Gray [1999] (unreported) | Lost footballing career damages | Referenced as relevant authority in the context of lost football career claims |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed and structured analysis of the Plaintiff's prospects, drawing on extensive lay and expert evidence. The Plaintiff's football history, abilities, and achievements were examined, including his progression through Company A’s Youth Academy, his award of a prestigious youth player award, and his role in winning a major youth competition. The court gave significant weight to the testimony of experienced football professionals intimately familiar with the Plaintiff’s abilities and potential, particularly the Manager of Company A, whose evidence was described as fair and balanced.
The court considered statistical evidence on survival rates of youth players in professional football but recognized its limitations, especially its inability to account for the Plaintiff’s individual attributes and achievements. The court rejected a purely statistical approach to assessing the Plaintiff's career prospects in favor of a holistic evaluation of all evidence.
Regarding remuneration, the court assessed several sources, including expert evidence, published surveys, and financial reviews of football clubs. It found some expert evidence anecdotal and subjective, preferring data from a reputable newspaper survey corroborated by the players’ association and financial reviews by a leading accountancy firm.
Applying legal principles on loss of chance damages, the court acknowledged that where uncertainty exists, damages should be discounted to reflect the probability of the chance materialising. The court carefully weighed the competing expert views on the Plaintiff's likelihood of achieving a professional career at various levels, concluding the Plaintiff would have had a successful career at least at Championship level, with a significant chance of Premiership level participation for part of his career.
The court addressed past and future loss of earnings by estimating likely wages, bonuses, and contract durations, applying appropriate discounts for risks such as injury and other contingencies. It rejected speculative projections of earnings increases in favor of a conventional multiplier/multiplicand approach reflecting average earnings uplifted for the Plaintiff's expected career trajectory. The court also considered the Plaintiff’s alternative career prospects and concluded that while he may pursue an academic or other professional career, his success in those fields was unproven and his earnings uncertain.
On the claim for loss of chance to pursue a career in football management or coaching, the court found the possibility too speculative to warrant damages.
Holding and Implications
The court awarded damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and gratuitous care as agreed. After detailed assessment, it quantified the Plaintiff’s past and future loss of earnings based on the evidence and applied a modest discount for contingencies. The court DECLINED TO AWARD DAMAGES for loss of chance in football management or coaching, finding it too speculative.
The decision directly affects the parties by establishing the quantum of damages payable for the Plaintiff’s lost football career and related losses. The court did not set new precedent but applied established legal principles on loss of chance and damages assessment in personal injury claims involving sporting careers.
Alert