 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Robson v Grampian Country Chickens (Rearing) Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_100 (10 July 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2008/CSOH_100.html Cite as: [2008] ScotCS CSOH_100, 2008 GWD 25-391, [2008] CSOH 100, 2009 SCLR 82 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2008] CSOH 100 |
|
|
PD893/06 |
OPINION OF LORD KINCLAVEN in the cause MRS JOYCE ROBSON Pursuer; against GRAMPIAN COUNTRY CHICKENS (REARING) LTD Defenders: ________________ |
Pursuer:
M.A. Stuart; Morisons, LLP
Defenders: McGregor;
Simpson & Marwick, W.S.
10 July 2008
[1] This is a reparation action in which the pursuer seeks damages for personal injuries.
[2] The
pursuer was employed by the defenders at their premises at
[3] As a result of the defenders' failures in duty the pursuer contracted occupational asthma.
[4] Liability is admitted. The sum sued for is £100,000.
[5] The matter came before me by way of proof restricted to quantum of damages.
[6] The pursuer was represented by Mr Michael Stuart.
[7] The defenders were represented by Mr McGregor.
[8] Having heard the evidence, I also had the benefit of helpful submissions from counsel.
[9] In
the whole circumstances, and for the reasons outlined below, I propose to grant
decree for payment by the defenders to the pursuer of the sum of £24,890.72
The Background
[10] The pursuer was born on
[11] The Record, as amended, is No.21 of Process.
[12] The Minute of Admission of Liability is Number 20.
[13] The defenders admit liability to make reparation to the pursuer under reservation of "their whole rights and pleas relating to quantum". No question of causation arises.
[14] The pursuer's averments of loss (in Article 10 of Condescendence) are as follows:
"This condition (occupational asthma) causes the pursuer
to suffer breathlessness that makes many forms of physical activity difficult
for her. She suffers from pain in her
chest. She can no longer go walking,
swimming or cycling. She is incapable of
carrying out physically demanding work.
The pursuer has been off work and terminated her employment with the
defender on or around
[15] The defenders aver, in Answer 10, inter alia:
"The sum sued
for is excessive. Explained and averred
that lung function tests revealed that the pursuer has not suffered from any
significant disability. She has
minimally reduced lung function.
Examination of her chest reveals no abnormality nor any signs of
wheezing. She is overweight. Esto
the pursuer suffers from breathlessness on exertion (which is not known and not
admitted), this is not the consequence of pulmonary impairment. She is fit for work and following the
termination of her employment with the defenders she worked in a beef
processing plant. She is currently
employed in cleaning aircraft at
Joint Minute of Admissions
[16] Helpfully, in terms of the
Joint Minute of Admissions, No.23 of Process, the parties were agreed as
follows:
1. That the pursuer's
employment with the defenders was terminated on
2. That the pursuer was
employed by Mathers (Inverurie) Ltd from
3. That the pursuer was
employed by Aberdeen Aircraft Cleaning Company on
4. That 7/1 is a copy
spreadsheet detailing the earnings paid to the pursuer by the defenders for the
period
5. That 6/2 is a copy
spreadsheet detailing the earnings paid to the pursuer by the defenders for the
period
6. That 7/2 of process are copy documents detailing the earnings paid to the pursuer by Mathers (Inverurie) Ltd for the period 19 April 2004 to 18 June 2004.
7. That 7/3 of process is a
copy spreadsheet detailing the earnings paid to the pursuer by Aberdeen Aircraft
Cleaning Co for the period
8. That 6/1 and 6/30 of process are the pursuer's general practice records.
9. That 6/3 are copy records from the defenders' Occupational Health Department.
The Proof
[17] At the start of the proof, I
was referred to the Joint Minute of Admissions (No.23 of Process).
[18] The pursuer also introduced into evidence the Report of the Pursuer's
Commission to take the evidence of Professor J G Ayres which was held on
[19] I also heard oral evidence from:
1. Mrs Joyce Robson, the pursuer; and
2. Professor Anthony Seaton, the defenders' expert witness.
[20] Counsel made helpful submissions as follows.
The Submissions for the Pursuer
The Pursuer
[21] Mr Stuart invited me to find that the pursuer was a credible and reliable witness. She was somewhat stoical but found the process of giving evidence stressful. Both Professors Ayres and Seaton considered Mrs Robson to be a honest person who did not seek to mislead about her condition. Professor Seaton said she forgot some things but made no attempt to mislead.
[22] The core of her account was supported by the objective and expert evidence and Mr Stuart invited me to accept it.
[23] The pursuer said that she first noticed her symptoms when she
relieved a fellow worker called Morag (in around 2001 or 2002). She would get a dry cough and pain in the
middle of her chest. She was generally
tired and breathlessness depending on her situation. She first presented to her GP with chest pain
in 2002 (see Production No. 6/1 at page 202 -
[24] The pursuer was off work for some time. She was sent home by Laird Parker, Grampian Country Chickens manager, because she could not do her job. She had no symptoms before Grampian Country Chickens.
[25] The pursuer's symptoms are up and down in the sense that she now has good weeks and bad weeks. There had been an overall improvement since starting steroids. Triggers for her asthma include cold weather, humid weather, smoke, dust, and aerosols. She no longer swims - because of the chlorine. She no longer walks up hills but can manage on the flat. She no longer cycles. She lives on steep hill and does not see the point. Her chest tightens and she has to use her inhaler. The pursuer does not go out as much and finds she gets exhausted. She does not dye her hair or paint her nails anymore. She now structures her life around her asthma. She suffers more colds and chest infections - perhaps four to five a year. Without her medication her chest is very sore, she cannot breathe properly and she cannot get breath.
[26] The pursuer lost her job with Grampian Country Chickens due to her condition.
[27] The pursuer could not cope with her subsequent job with Mathers
(Inverurie) Ltd but that was because of a pre-existing elbow condition (see Production
No.6/1 of Process at page 202 - entry of
[28] The pursuer was now working with Aberdeen Aircraft Cleaning Company. The pursuer was concerned about losing her job. The owner, John Moir, had suffered heart failure.
[29] The pursuer had limited alternatives for employment. For example she could not work in a bakery or in Boots.
[30] Mr Stuart submitted that the pursuer would probably work to 65 to 70, depending on pension and fitness to work. She did overtime at Grampian Country Chickens, but as symptoms got worse had to stop doing overtime. The pursuer was "a worker".
Professor Ayres
[31] Mr Stuart also provided a review
of the evidence of Professor Ayres.
[32] Professor Ayres is Professor of Environmental and
Occupational Medicine at the
[33] I need not rehearse the Commission Report (Production No.22 of Process). Suffice it to note that Professor Ayres gave evidence in relation to, inter alia:-
[34] Cross examination of Professor Ayres is at page 36 et seq. He deals with inter alia:-
[35] The defenders case was put to Professor Ayres at pages 76D to 80A.
[36] Professor Ayres stated inter alia (at page 79): "My feeling with Mrs Robson is in general she has been honest". There was a question mark about the patterns of her peak flow. There was one component where he thought it was a bit regimental but otherwise his feeling was, and he had met the pursuer a number of times, "that basically she is an honest soul".
[37] In re-examination (at pages 81 to 86) Professor Ayres explained that lung function was being looked at under the influence of appropriate medical therapy (page 81E). Without appropriate medical therapy "things would be worse" (page 82F). He did not think the pursuer was "morbidly obese". He thought she was "overweight".
[38] Professor Ayres stood by the views expressed in his reports (page 86D).
Professor Seaton
[39] Mr Stuart also provided a
review of the evidence of Professor Seaton , along the following lines.
[40] Mrs Robson has asthma. It developed over quite a significant period. She will continue to have asthma.
[41] Mrs Robson will continue to use inhalers for the rest of her life; both preventative inhaler daily and relief inhaler as and when required.
[42] The steroids suppress the irritability associated with asthma and improve control of asthma.
[43] She will require her relief inhaler where control is lost, and oral steroids where the attack is severe. She has had two courses of oral steroids.
[44] Most asthmatics are normally healthy and get relief from two puffs from their inhaler. If they suffer an attack, they will take two puffs and be fine in about 5 minutes. The treatment becomes part of normal life.
[45] Mrs Robson is worse than that, according to Mr Stuart. She has to take a regular preventative inhaler to prevent an attack, and salbutomol (her reliever) when necessary.
[46] The symptoms complained of since leaving work, which are set out in Professor Seaton's report, are all perfectly plausible (page 4-5).
[47] The aim is to help patients lead as normal a life as possible. If medication was removed symptoms would become more troublesome.
[48] Exposure to triggers through life will cause exacerbations and some may be severe - although one should not read too much into particular adjectives like severe or mild. What is important is how it interferes with life - by looking at the patient and seeing how her life-style is affected.
[49] Mrs Robson has "irritant" asthma, as opposed to "sensitisation" type asthma. There are all sorts of triggers such as fumes; vapours; cold air; psychological stresses; physical exertion. Mrs Robson will have to manage her life to avoid triggers but even those with severe asthma can and do hold down full time jobs - even as miners.
[50] It is not so much working per se but working conditions that are relevant to asthma. Mrs Robson should avoid employment where triggers exist. Employers are often unlikely to take on people with asthma.
[51] Professor Ayres did not take the view Mrs Robson was maximising symptoms for the purpose of compensation. There was an element of human reaction but it was simply part of who Mrs Robson is. She made some mistakes but was truthful. She was stressed and anxious at time of interview.
[52] In relation to the level of disability, it was helpful to look at different components taken together:
[53] At the end of the day, Mr Stuart was not sure that there was a great deal of difference between Professor Ayres and Professor Seaton.
[54] Ultimately there was a broad measure of agreement.
[55] There was a slight disproportion between Mrs Robson's lung function tests and her breathlessness, but that could be explained by reference to her disposition.
Quantum
Solatium
[56] In relation to solatium, Mr Stuart suggested that the question of Mrs Robson being anxious accounted for any disproportion in symptoms. He referred to the evidence of Professor Seaton and Kathleen Mullins v Derek Gray [2004] EWCA Civ 1483 (particularly paragraphs 9, 10, 13, 23 and 24). This was simply part of Mrs Robson's disposition.
[57] Mr Stuart also referred to the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injuries Cases, Chapter 5 (D) "Asthma" paragraph (b) which suggested a range of £15,250 - £25,000.
[58] The elements to be considered were:-
[59] Mr Stuart suggested that Mrs Robson's case fell into the upper half of the JSB Guidelines.
[60] As far as judicial precedents were concerned, there were few reported decisions. I was referred to Reilly v Robert Kellie & Son Ltd 1990 S.L.T. 78 (March 1989) which has an equivalent, as at June 2007, of £22,034 (206.2/112.3 x £12,000). I was also referred to cases from Kemp & Kemp (pages K2002 - K2004) and I was reminded of the influence of Heil v Rankin [2001] QB 272 which resulted in an uplift in awards. It was suggested that the awards discussed should be seen as a little low following Heil.
Wage
loss
[62] In relation to wage loss, Mr Stuart referred me to Productions 7/1, 7/2 and 7/3 and submitted that there should be an award outlined as follows.
[63] In relation to Grampian Country Chickens (Rearing) Ltd, there
were two relevant periods, namely (1) 14 weeks from
[64] In relation to Mathers (Inverurie) Ltd, Mr Stuart submitted
that the appropriate figure was £867
based on 9 weeks (after deduction of actual earnings of £865.50). The pursuer had a pre-existing problem (see
Production 6/6 at page 202 and the entry for
[65] In relation to Aberdeen Aircraft Cleaning Company, the claim was for 3 weeks, namely, £273 (after deduction of actual earnings of £304.97).
[66] The total of those various elements, according to my calculations, produces a total net wage loss claim of £1,663.
[67] Interest was sought at 8% per annum from
Disadvantage
in the labour market
[68] Mr Stuart also sought an award in relation to disadvantage in the labour market.
[69] The relevant factors were said to be:-
· risk of being placed on the labour market,
· disadvantage once there,
· disability, an
· future time on labour market.
[70] The relevant evidence came from:-
· The Pursuer, who said she would work to 65 or 70 depending. She was 57 years of age and had 8 to 15 more years in the labour market. Her current employer had recently suffered a stroke / heart attack
· Professor Seaton, who said that employers were unlikely to take on people with asthma. The pursuer was handicapped in that she was unable to do certain work.
· Professor Ayres, who thought it likely that existence of triggers will govern choice of employment to some extent. Some employers knowing the pursuer's past history could well feel that she is not the person for them.
[71] In this context, awards were frequently made by reference to pursuer's net annual income. Awards were rarely for less than six months and some were up to three years net salary for younger individuals with significant impairment.
[72] The pursuer's current net annual earnings are £14,245.
Summary
of Pursuer's Submissions
[73] In summary, Mr Stuart invited me to award the following as principal sums:-
· Solatium £20,000
· Wage Loss £ 1,663
· Disadvantage on the Labour Market £10,000
[74] Interest was sought on past solatium (50% being attributed to
the past) at half the judicial rate. Mr Stuart
initially suggested interest from
[75] Interest was sought on wage loss at 8% per annum from
The Submissions for the
Defenders
[76] McGregor's submissions took
as their starting point the Record and in particular Statement of Claim 6 (pages 12
and 13) which I have set out above.
[77] The pursuer sought solatium, lost earnings, disadvantage on the labour market, and prescription costs.
[78] At the outset Mr McGregor submitted that there has been either no evidence or wholly insufficient evidence to substantiate the claims for loss of earnings or prescription costs. In his submission these heads of claim must necessarily fail.
[79] Before me the pursuer did not advance any claim for prescription costs. To that extent Mr McGregor's submission was well founded.
[80] I shall return to the question of wage loss below.
[81] Mr McGregor dealt with the remaining heads of claim, namely solatium and disadvantage in the labour market as follows.
Solatium
[82] In relation to solatium Mr McGregor, submitted that a reasonable sum to reflect the pain and suffering of Mrs Robson as a consequence of her asthma was £10,000. That sum included an element in respect of loss of congeniality of employment.
[83] Interest should be awarded at one-half of the judicial rate on one
half of the solatium (as representing
the past) from the date of diagnosis which Mr McGregor identified as about
August 2003. It appears from the medical
records that the first prescription was issued on
[84] In Mr McGregor's submission, there was little difference in opinion of the two professors - Ayres and Seaton. The only medical difference was that, in terms of both their written medical reports and oral evidence, Professor Seaton had attempted to categorise the pursuer's condition.
[85] Professor Seaton in his oral evidence supported his written opinion (with the exception of one point in relation to impact of smoking). He identified the pursuer as someone who has mild airway irritability and minimal impairment of lung function. He did not consider her to suffer from any significant disability.
[86] Professor Ayres' two reports are productions No. 6/28 and 6/29 respectively. He made no assessment of the level of disability (paragraph 30 of Production No. 6/28 and the opinion in Production No. 6/29). Professor Ayres was also given the opportunity to provide an assessment of Mrs Robson's status as an asthmatic during cross-examination (at pages 77B to 79F of the Report of the Commission Production No. 22). Mr McGregor submitted that there was a marked reluctance to define the level of disability to the point that there was considerable difficulty in assessing quantum based upon Professor Ayres' reports and oral evidence.
[87] The opinion of Professor Seaton did have clarity and that was amplified in his oral evidence. In short, his position was that the pursuer does have asthma caused by occupational exposure. That is not in any way challenged. He accepts that during the initial period when her symptoms came to fore (in particular the period in 2003 leading to diagnosis by her GP in August) these symptoms were unpleasant and may well have been painful.
[88] However, since the diagnosis, Mrs Robson has been treated with some degree of success to the extent that, with the daily use of an inhaler, she controls her symptoms. With this control of her symptoms, she is able to lead as normal a life as possible. She is susceptible to irritants such as chemicals and smoke. However, it is essential to put this into context. Professor Seaton was asked what happens when Mrs Robson is aggravated by, for example, chemicals. He explained that she would feel symptoms coming on, tightness of the chest and a degree of breathlessness. In those circumstances, she reaches for her relief inhaler, takes two puffs and within five minutes she returns to (although Mr McGregor hesitated to use the word) "normal". There are and will continue to be occasions when she will catch a cold and her symptoms will be exacerbated to a greater extent. But again, this was put into context by Professor Seaton. In such a circumstance, Mrs Robson may have to obtain antibiotics or other medication designed to relieve her symptoms and allow her to return to daily activities such as work. It is of note that there was no evidence suggesting that she has been absent from her present employment as a consequence of asthma, a job she has been doing since 2004.
[89] Professor Seaton recognised the difficulty of categorising such patients. However, he indicated that he used three descriptions, mild, moderate and severe. An important factor in determining which label is appropriate is the level of interference in the patient's life. Mrs Robson mentioned physical exercise and inevitably focused upon her asthma in this connection. In Mr McGregor's submission other factors must also be borne in mind such as:-
[90] In Mr McGregor's submission, the ultimate position of Mrs Robson was that her account of her symptoms was not materially "out of sync" with the opinions of the two medical experts.
[91] She had a tendency to focus upon the moments when her condition has been irritated by smoke or aerosols but, to be fair to her (when some sort of chronology of her symptoms was established through cross-examination) she accepted that she improved between July and November 2004 and that the description of her doing "pretty well" was correct as at May 2006.
[92] Mrs Robson also accepted that there were a number of factors that caused her to wake at night or have restless nights. She may cough at night. Professor Seaton indicated that many people without asthma cough at night, but there was insufficient evidence in Mr McGregor's submission to link Mrs Robson's night wakening and her asthma. There was the evidence of other factors which contradicts such a position. There were recurring doubts highlighted in Professor Ayres' reviews and the GP records about the connection. This was important when considering the impact on her daily life which necessarily includes night time.
[93] It was clear, in Mr McGregor's submission, that there were other extraneous factors which have impacted upon Mrs Robson's daily life. There was her evidence that her hypothyroid has affected her feet. She compared it to walking on broken glass. She takes medication for this. She had felt tired over a long period of time and saw this is a consequence of night wakening for which there are a number of factors. So when it was put to her that her asthma had little impact on her daily life, she was rather evasive wishing to focus on the occasional bouts of exacerbation of her asthma that she could suffer. Mr McGregor did not criticise her for doing so but the evidence of her main daily activity, namely her work, indicated that there is little impact on her life other than taking her inhaler in the morning when she wakes and at night when she retires.
[94] Mr McGregor submitted that there was a telling response from Mrs Robson to the assertion that she had little significant disablement as a consequence of her asthma. There was a hesitation before she answered "No, not really."
[95] Mr McGregor submitted that the evidence concerning Mrs Robson's condition can be encapsulated thus:-
This was the summary provided by Professor Seaton and it was not challenged under cross-examination.
[96] Mr McGregor submitted that the pursuer's position was not adequately served by the categorisation adopted by the JSB Guidelines. On one view, there was more of a subjective element which took this condition outwith any categorisation as such. To try and slot the pursuer's condition into a category is difficult and not one which is well served by the categories in the JSB Guidelines.
[97] In Mr McGregor's submission, this truly was a case to be determined on its own facts and circumstances insofar as quantum is concerned.
[98] He submitted that £10,000 was both reasonable and appropriate because her condition was under control and she managed it through her medication. She was not suffering from daily episodes of breathlessness. She took her preventative inhaler each day. The necessity of taking an inhaler on a daily basis was a consequence of her "injury" but it was not a manifestation or recurrence of that "injury".
Disadvantage
in the labour market
[99] Mr McGregor submitted that there was no disadvantage in the labour market.
[100] At best for the pursuer, she cannot work again for the defenders, or in bakers, or on cosmetic counters, or in strenuous employment.
[101] Against that she had taken up employment almost immediately in another factory. She left this because of a separate medical condition. She then progressed to her current employers where she began as a cleaner and has now been promoted to a position of manager with administrative responsibilities. She had never attained such a high position previously.
[102] It was clear that since leaving the defenders, far from being disadvantaged, she has positively enhanced her viability in the job market. She may be unable to undertake strenuous jobs, such as Mathers, but it was clear that other factors play a prominent role. Her history of tennis elbow would be a primary factor in any perceived disadvantage. Age and general fitness would also go against the pursuer in vying for a job which was a strenuous or physically challenging.
[103] With the pressure of time to turn aircraft around there might be
a strenuous element to aircraft cleaning.
However, there was no evidence that she could not do that job. She has no desire to work in a bakers. Were she to lose her current job, and her
evidence about that was relatively vague, she would present as someone with
experience of managing others, hiring others, and preparing necessary
paperwork. She currently earns more
money than she ever did at Grampian.
There was no evidence that she has lost any time whilst at
[104] In short, Mr McGregor invited me to find defenders liable in respect of solatium only to the extent of £10,000 plus interest and to make no awards in respect of disadvantage, wage loss or prescription charges.
Conclusions
[105] I have taken into account all the submissions of counsel - including the very sensible suggestion that I should proceed on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this particular case.
[106] In the whole circumstances, in my opinion, damages in respect of
the pursuer's asthma can be assessed fairly and reasonably as follows:-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heads of Claim |
|
|
|
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Solatium
inclusive of interest |
|
£ |
18,834.79 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Past loss of earnings
inclusive of interest |
|
2,055.92 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Disadvantage on the
labour market |
|
4,000.00 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total heads of claim |
|
|
|
24,890.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[107] I have set out my conclusions and my calculations in an associated spreadsheet (annexed) which I refer to for its terms.
[108] The spreadsheet is, I hope, self-explanatory but it may be helpful to add a few words of explanation.
Solatium
[109] I have already set out (above) the competing contentions of parties relating to solatium.
[110] Ultimately the question is one of fact and degree - for my assessment.
[111] A key element of the claim depends on my assessment of the pursuer's evidence.
[112] In the whole circumstances, and on the evidence before me, I accepted Mr Stuart's submissions to the effect that the pursuer was a credible and reliable witness.
[113] I took into account that Professor Ayres was "slightly concerned" that some of the peak flow recordings may have been inaccurate (see the Report of Commission No.22 of Process at page 54C) but that did not affect my ultimate conclusion on credibility or reliability.
[114] Professor Seaton did not consider Mrs Robson to be deliberately or intentionally exaggerating her symptoms. He was of the view that any disproportion was part of Mrs Robson's natural reaction to her asthma given her disposition - that it was a trait commonly seen amongst asthmatics.
[115] In my opinion, on the evidence outlined above, the appropriate
award in relation to solatium is £17,500
with interest on one-half thereof (£8,750) at the rate of 4% per annum
from
Loss of earnings
[116] The defenders submitted, inter alia, that there was no evidential basis for any award in relation to loss of earnings. I do not agree.
[117] It is a matter of agreement that the pursuer's employment with the
defenders was terminated on
[118] In my opinion, the appropriate award in relation to loss of earnings is one based on the figures suggested by Mr Stuart which I total to be £1,663 - with interest thereon at 8 % from 1 July 2004.
Disadvantage on the labour
market
[119] The defenders also submitted that there was no evidential basis for any award in respect of disadvantage on the labour market. I do not agree.
[120] The pursuer impressed as being resourceful individual but I am satisfied that she is now at some disadvantage. However, I do not accept that her disadvantage merits an award as high as £10,000.
[121] In my opinion, on the evidence which has been outlined above, an appropriate award under this head would be £4,000.
[122] In my opinion that would be fair and reasonable.
Total Award
[123] The total of all those heads of claim amounts to £24,890.72
inclusive of interest to
Decision
[124] For the reasons outlined above, I propose to grant decree for
payment by the defenders to the pursuer of the sum of £24,890.72
[125] I shall reserve the question of expenses.
|
Annexation
: Assessment of Damages |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mrs Joyce
Robson v Grampian Country Chickens (Rearing) Ltd |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July
2008 |
|
|
|
Lord
Kinclaven |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART
1: GENERAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background
details of dates, age, time periods and interest |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuer's
date of birth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prescription |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment
terminated |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Date of
assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuer's
age at time of termination |
|
54.03 |
years |
|
||
|
|
Pursuer's
age at date of assessment |
57.21 |
years |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
|
3.81 |
years |
|
|
|
At half
judicial rate |
|
|
4.00 |
% pa |
|
|
|
|
Interest
as multiplier |
|
|
15.25 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART 2: HEADS OF CLAIM |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Solatium - for pain and suffering |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuer claims |
|
£ |
20,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having regard to the defenders' submissions |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Allow |
|
|
£ |
17,500.00 |
|
|
|
|
Apportion to the past |
|
|
0.50 |
% |
|
|
|
|
i.e. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Past Solatium |
|
|
8,750.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest on past solatium |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
at half judicial rate |
4.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
i.e. |
x |
15.25 |
% |
1,334.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Solatium |
|
|
8,750.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total solatium inclusive of interest |
|
£ |
18,834.79 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Loss of Earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuer claims |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Grampian Country Chickens (Rearing) Ltd |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period (1) |
From |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To |
|
|
£ |
267.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period (2) |
From |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To |
|
|
£ |
256.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Mathers (Inverurie) Ltd |
|
|
£ |
867.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
£ |
273.00 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
£ |
1,663.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.95 |
years |
|
|
|
|
|
at |
|
8.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
i.e. |
x |
23.63 |
% |
£ |
392.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allow |
|
|
|
£ |
2,055.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss of earnings inclusive of interest |
|
£ |
2,055.92 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Disadvantage on the
labour market |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuer claims |
£ |
10,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allow |
|
£ |
4,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disadvantage on the labour market |
|
£ |
4,000.00 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
£ |
24,890.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART 3: SUMMARY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heads of Claim |
|
|
|
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Solatium inclusive
of interest |
|
£ |
18,834.79 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Past loss of earnings
inclusive of interest |
|
2,055.92 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Disadvantage on the
labour market |
|
4,000.00 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total heads of claim |
|
|
|
24,890.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less |
Benefits |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
£ |
24,890.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus |
Interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at |
8.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
until |
payment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|