Majid Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP Zoo
[2023] EWHC 2159 (KB)
Benjamin Scarcliffe v Brampton Valley Group Ltd
29 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1565 (KB)
High Court
A tree surgeon sued for a serious back injury. The judge believed he exaggerated how bad his injuries were and that he had pre-existing back problems. So, while he got some money, it was far less than he asked for because of his dishonesty and pre-existing conditions.
Key Facts
- •Accident on 22 September 2017 during claimant's employment as an arborist.
- •Claimant suffered two transverse process spinal fractures.
- •Claimant developed chronic post-traumatic pain.
- •Defendant argued pre-existing degenerative spine contributed significantly to claimant's condition.
- •Significant disparity between claimant's reported disability and observed capabilities.
- •Claimant's family has five children, two with severe disabilities.
- •Claimant's pre-accident medical history included back and shoulder problems.
Legal Principles
Damages aim to put the claimant in the position they would have been in but for the injury.
Wells-v-Wells [1999] 1 AC 345
Claimant entitled to damages for reasonable needs arising from injuries.
Whiten v St George's [2011] EWHC 2066 (QB)
Court may use a lump sum assessment for past and future employment losses due to imponderables.
Blamire-v-South Cumbria [1993] PIQR Q1, Willemse-v-Hesp [2003] EWCA Civ 994
Experts have an overriding duty to help the court, their opinions must be objective and non-partisan.
Muyepa-v-Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB)
A 25% reduction is applied to past gratuitous care.
Ali-v-Caton & MIB [2013] EWHC 1730
Care provided must be extra/beyond what would have been provided in any event.
Giambrone-v-Sunworld [2004] EWCA Civ 158
Outcomes
Judgment entered in favour of the claimant.
Claimant suffered injuries resulting in chronic pain, but pre-existing conditions and claimant's actions were factors influencing the extent of damages.
Damages awarded totalled £275,063.03.
Detailed breakdown of damages across various heads of claim, considering the claimant's exaggeration of disability, pre-existing conditions, and the likelihood of future improvement with treatment. A significant portion of the claim was discounted due to inconsistencies in the claimant's testimony and overestimation of care needs.