Taxi Driver Compensation Claim

Peter Seepersad V (1) Theophilus Persad (2) Capital Insurance Ltd (2004)

The appellant's award of damages in respect of his back injury was increased from that awarded by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago .

The appellant (S) appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago in respect of the level of damages awarded to him for a back injury sustained in a road traffic accident. S had been a taxi driver and mechanic at the time of the accident. He alleged that he was unable to work as a result of his injuries. S had appealed an award of damages in the High Court on the basis that the assessment was inordinately low.

The respondents cross-appealed against specific awards in respect of pain, suffering and loss of amenity and future loss. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and increased the amounts for special damage and future loss. The court also allowed the cross-appeal and reduced the award made in respect of pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The total award of damages made by the High Court was increased from $290,491 to $445,778.50 by the Court of Appeal. S was awarded half the costs of his appeal and the case was certified as fit for one counsel only. S sought to have the award of damages increased and to have the award of costs amended to full costs with a certification that the case was fit for two counsel.

HELD: (1) The amount determined by the Court of Appeal for pain, suffering and loss of amenity was the product of the appellate judges' views within their own experience and would not be amended. However it was not justifiable to include within that award the amount of S's future loss in respect of medical treatment and medication which was quite substantial and should be dealt with as a separate head of loss.

(2) With regard to the assessment of future loss of earnings, there had been no evidence for the Court of Appeal's conclusions that S could continue to run his taxi business or employ part-time employees to continue his work. A continuing loss of earnings of 50 per cent was more appropriate than the 35 per cent used by the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, no reason had been given by the Court of Appeal for selecting a multiplicand of 10 years. Taking account of relevant interest rates and making allowance for the contingencies of life, the appropriate multiplicand would be 16 years.

(3) The High Court judge had not included a sum for the future cost of medical treatment and the Court of Appeal, by including an unquantified small amount for those costs, had not compensated S for his loss under that head in a sufficient or appropriate way. The most appropriate way to deal with this item was to allow a lump sum of $100,000 that would reflect the possibility of S incurring medical expenses in the future. Accordingly, the total award of damages would be increased to $831,618.50 having regard to the issues determined in favour of S.

(4) The Court of Appeal's decision to award S only half of his costs was based on an erroneous approach in considering the assessment of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity as a separate issue from the assessment of the other heads of damage. The general rule was that costs would follow the event unless there was sufficient reason to the contrary.

There had been insufficient grounds before the Court of Appeal for reducing S's costs and those costs would accordingly be awarded in full. Furthermore, S would be entitled to the costs of instructing two counsel given that the sum now awarded was almost double that awarded by the Court of Appeal. It was apparent from the reassessment of the size of the claim that the skill and knowledge demanded of counsel and the weight of responsibility resting on them were higher than that assumed by the courts below.

Appeal allowed.

Damages - Costs(Ltl) - Personal Injury
PC (UK) (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell) 1/4/2004
LTL 2/4/2004 (Unreported elsewhere)