Hello, my name is nine. Maloney. I'm embarrassed, hardly specializing in technical, negligent and personal injury. This is a webinar about lost years. Claims lost years. Claims represent damages for financial losses caused by the tortious shortening of life. The most straightforward example you'll find is that a loss of earnings, the loss of earnings that would have been on and have claimed life expectancy You've not been curtailed. They are claims brought by living claimants. If your claimant dies before the case is settled or before trial, then they usually become dependency claims under the Fatal Accidents Act. And those two basis of claims have very different rules and can sometimes result in very different sentimental trial outcomes. The rationale for the recovery of damages in these claims is that happy claimant lived for the extended period. They could have spent then money on themselves or their dependents or on anyone or anything else, and certainly the early House of laws. Authorities in this area made that clear, and that there is no specific requirement for the claimant in Los Years claims to have dependence. Strictly speaking, these claims are only for adult claimants. So whilst there may be a huge shortening of life expectancy. For example, in a brain injury case, it's often the case that a claim on behalf of the child is precluded under lost years. But I will look at later in this webinar, when acclaim for a child could succeed. There is no one specific type of personal injury. Will clinical, negligent case that lost years planes apply to. They can arise in any claim where life expectancy is adversely affected by the defendants. Tortious wrong in my particular practise, law fears planes most commonly arise in delaying diagnosing cancer cases. So for an example in those sorts of cases, but for the breach of duty, the claimants cancer would have been diagnosed Stage one, and their life expectancy might be another 20 years. But as a result of the delay in diagnosis, the cancer is diagnosed at stage three or four on their life expectancy, maybe a lot shorter around five years. So in that example, a lost years claim would include the plane for 15 years, loss of earnings minus the proportion of those earnings that would have been spent on the payments living expenses during that period onto the next slide This is what I'm going to try to cover and get trapped. Cover the rules. How to quantify one of these planes and sorts of things that you will need to consider with your clients when advising of lost years planes the kidneys on the next slide is that there are only two basic rules will be at the 2nd 1 is a little bit Larry. Rule number one is at a loss years claim is only for lit a living claimant. It used to be the case that lost years claims could be brought on behalf of the estate off claimant or deceased after that death that following the Administration of Justice Act 1982 that was precluded following net once a claimant dies, the only route to recovering their hypothetical future loss of earnings would then be in a dependency claim and and fatal ext insect on. Of course, it's not always the case that there are dependent around to bring those claims. So if you have a case and settlement is delayed and the client dies in the intervening time for the case settled, that could have potentially very serious consequences on recovery. And I'll look later on in this webinar at some of the considerations toe have in your mind when advising war clients. The second role, which, of course there are exceptions and qualifications, is that Children with shortened life expectancies cannot recover last year's damages. The Court of Appeal in the case off Broken Wiseman decided that a child claimant with no dependents could not recover in the lost years claim. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal have stated that this was inconsistent with two previous House of Lords authorities. But because they were cited in croak on Wiseman, everyone else is bound by it unless it goes back to the Supreme Court or unless governments in soybeans. There have been a few examples in recent years off high court judges boldly trying to distinguish the decision in crank. The closest anyone has got to the Supreme Court is a case called Big Bow, which went to the Court of Appeal in 2007 and, in it about the Court of Appeal, stated quite clearly that the earlier House of Lords authorities didn't impose a requirement for a child tohave dependent in order to claim under lost years. But even though they considered the croak, Wiseman was wrongly decided. They recognize that they were still bound by it. The Court of Appeal granted to mission to claiming to appeal to the half laws as it was at that time. But the NHS trust defending that claim settled the case before the appeal was heard by the House of Lords. So if you're acting for a claimant, where does that leave you? If you have a child, we have ever geez life expectancy and I have free observations. I suppose the first sees include a lost years claim in your schedule. The NHS L A. Is a word and in the case of it now settled that. And in 2015 they settled another case called Tottenham on favourable terms. Again off The permission to appeal have been given. So certainly in clinical negligence cases, it seems that NHS are as they are now. Take a pragmatic new on child trading two lost years claims and second observation that J. R. Was a three proposing case where the claimant was injured at birth. That was a bridge duty. But the claim didn't conclude until the claim and had reached 24 years old as such, the passage of time made it so that the claim was not caught by the decision in Croke. By the time the case came to its conclusion the claim. It was no longer a child. Now, of course, I'm not suggesting that you settle your or delay settling your cases by 20 years. But if you have an older child, claimant, perhaps 15 16 approaching the cusp of adult hood, a relatively short tonight could be advantageous to ensure that you're not caught by the are two child train. It's incredible, Wiseman Third and final observation is that it's got to go to the Supreme Court. One day. Permission was granted in Big Bell, and we saw in the case of command that the Supreme Court have been prepared to correct these sorts of historic anomalies. So on to the next part, that's eligibility done. How do you actually go about quantifying one of these cases? In simple terms, the principle is that the damage is our money that would have been earned by the claimant in those lost years of life, minus the living expenses that would have been incurred by the claim in those years, didn't come isn't just employment related earnings and pension, but all pecuniary benefits stand to be considered. There's even the case where, but for the early demise off the claimant, May would have expected to have received inheritance from another relative on that anticipated income, Waas recovered. A Spartan mostly is trying. Daniel seems fairly straightforward, but unfortunately for practitioners, there are several methods of calculating the final figure on both the income and the living expenses. I've condensed these methods down into two styles or categories. The first method one is what's known as the available surplus method on one of you. Available surplus under last year's is more straightforward because you don't have to go about working out the juke joint pulled incomers you would do in the dependency claim. But the downside is that generally, the discount for living expenses for the train mint is greater than that that would be applied in a fatal accident trying. Although there has been lots of judicial criticism or the fact that there isn't alignment between lofty years claims and fatal X intact cases so onto net slide, we looked at what counts as income on an earlier slide, so not just employment related expenses. But what are the living expenses under the available surplus method on this is where it gets a little more complicated. The principle is that you only deduct the money that the claimant would have spent on his or herself or their personal share. Two drawings expenses. In other words, it doesn't include money that the claimant would have spent directly on others. There's an interesting case where analysis into claimants expenditure revealed that he was spending virtually all his income on entertaining his girlfriend. The defendant in the case argued that there was no available surplus to deployment and that this part of his lifestyle was his living expenses on the court said no, they didn't agree. The defendant. That's money for her benefit, not he is so there is no deduction against the income four days expenses. So whilst every case is different and you really do need a detailed analysis off the particular income and expenditure Thean individual client there are generally accepted starting points or ranges for casing, but the case is assuming a relatively average income or average lifestyle. Of course, if you have a claim for a very high earner, they're going to have a greater available surplus to spend on themselves than someone who is earning at the national average or below. And so in that case, you might increase that percentage were couple E throwing the net income from those shown on the side? Conversely, if you're dealing with benefits claiming or someone living on the breadline, the defendant is likely to argue that there wouldn't have been anything left to that claim to spend on his or herself. So if you look at the 1st 2 examples on your slide, it's probably counterintuitive. Why should a person with two Children under the second example have a greater available surplus than someone without Children on? It's precisely because you do spend more money on Children. That's why you have a greater descended recovery. You have to go back to the rule that we looked at earlier. What counsel dozen counters a living extent and money spent for the benefit of others includes your Children. So when you have Children, you spend less on joint things on more on things solely for their benefit. And it's also an area, perhaps where there's more of a parallel with dependency chains on the fatal extra insect if there are Children than the dependency pot is 75% off the pooled income, 66% if there are no Children, as they say, it's counterintuitive and certainly very artificial. But those percentages, given understanding examples, are far from setting in stone. Once you've worked out your income and reduction percentages, that's your multiple can. The key question when you're working out your multiplier, though, is whether the court will apply a multiplier from Table 28 which is lost for a fixed future period. Or whether you go for a multiplier from Table one or two of the ultimate tables, which is much less generous to plain mint as it provides also a discount for the risk that the cave might have died or stopped earning. But for their ordinary life expectancy even, but four negatives. Now, how did the courts operate? Which method today go for? And they're certainly judicial support for the more claimant friendly Table 28 approach. The two cases on your screen contains a very helpful comment on that claim. Practitioners should be aware of unhealthily for table practitioners, more helpfully, for defendant practitioners. The explanatory notes. The often tables themselves suggest using tables one and two to calculate a lost years like it's probably mawr actuarially accurate to use tables one and two but lawfully, where the life expectancy evidence is that the claimant would probably have survived survive for a defined, specified period. Um, but for negligence on the balance probabilities approach, it is probably mawr actuarially accurate to use tables one and two of the often tables but legally, where the life expectancy evidence is that the claimant would probably have survived for a specified period of time. That is the balance probability approach, not the statistically adjusted approach. So for claiming practitioners certainly use able 28 for your schedules, lost defendant practitioners will argue tables one and two onto the next slide. The second method for working out the quantum of lost years claim is one probably more favored by defendants over claimant because it produces less favorable totals for the claimant. It's neutralize mawr by the courts in cases where the loss or the death is many years away and therefore claimed by its nature, is more likely to be speculative. So in cases where you are dealing with a young claimant who might have very little earnings history, or whether prognosis, even as a result in negligence, is still for survival for many more years to come. The courts. I think I'm more likely to adopt this approach of digesting the multiplier, or be it seems, in recent years that this is falling more out of fashion, unlike Method what in the available surplus method where you analyze the income and expenditure in detail. How it might fluctuated over the years, the method to addressing the motor lives more akin to Blaine Mayer or even a sniff in Manchester style award. Take, for example, a plane where the claimant is Jess, age 18. Their life expectancy is now only 15 years, and as a result of the negligence, they are not going to work for that period that would have earned £20,000 a year. Had they done so, the motivating standard calculation would give you £292,000. The digestive multiplier approach for lost years is simply to add on a fraction, usually around north on five, onto the loss of earnings multiply so in that example, that would give you a total loss years claim you'll see from last points on your slide total off years. Lehman, just £10,000 compare that result onto the next slide. We've been available surplus calculation and before we look at it, pause and say that in my view, Jochen tables and national airings data are now so advanced that the courts will generally try not to utilize method to, even in very difficult times, more speculative cases before the available surface calculation in action. Go back to the case Off Jr Jr we know is injured at birth. And so in that case, there was no pattern that earnings to utilize as the multiple canned and no educational attainments to show what sort of job the claimant might have gone into but for the negligence. And so no real evidence is what he would have learned was, you know, very specific evidence on the face of that. You can see why the defendant argued that this was too speculative to quantify lost years claim and have this has been a standard loss of earnings train. You could easily see a judge going down the blame I routes rather than the AQ timetables must fly multiple candidates. But in this case, Jr. The judge took evidence from what the claimants father and the claimant sibling and in their careers and arrived at a hypothetical gross salary for the Cleveland all £30,000 a year. But for the negligence, Judge also found that they are would have been the pension of just, say, the £12,000. The parties had agreed. The multiply on lost years claim was only from aged 70. That was a new life expectancy. So in that case it was a statistical curtailment life, something in the order of about 17 years from from average life expectancy, the claimant argued for living expenses deduction off 1/3 and the defendant argued, 50% available surplus. And that is indeed what was applied that you can see from your slide. The difference between the two approaches £169,000 versus £10,000. So certainly in claim its interest to argue wherever possible, that method one available surface method applies some things to think about poor practitioners. If you settle an action for damages in personal injury in the claimants lifetime, you cannot, of course, then bring a second action under the Fatal Accidents Act following their death. Even if there was no lost years or loss of earnings slide as part claims settled in their lifetime, including a claim before the claimant, Steph may have its advantages In many cases, it's not always the case that people will actually fulfill the requirements to be within the class of dependence that are eligible to bring a claim. Under the fatal accidents, there is a school of force that a judge or make chest trust, maim or generously compensate a living claimant for general damages. You settle general damages in their lifetime. And, of course, you can claim for the costs or private future care for a living claimant. Rare is you would need to have actually incurred private care fees to recover at that level. If you wait for care to become a past loss, I belong to the Nets slide. They may also be circumstances where a claimant would rather allow their dependence spring a fatal accident, claim robin and settle a lost years claim in their own lifetime. And the most important reason is that fatal accident claims providing a dependent is eligible to recover are generally more Luker lucrative than a lost years claim because of the way that the deductions are applied and, of course, in effect lacks. In that case, you can also came for full services dependency, the Bereavement Award and the Regan and Williamson Award. And there are some arguable exceptions for services provided by the train mint in last year's times, but essentially a claim for replacing the cost of gratuitous services provided by the claimant. I cannot really get off the ground unless a became provided those services to someone in the same household and be those services you know have been or will be replaced, plus some of the damages paid to acclaim and in their lifetime. If you set a lofty years, plane on into the loss basis could fall to be captured by inheritance tax when they come to die, which, of course, would be avoided if you frame your case with on what life? It's a C basis as a dependency plane. So when you have one of these cases, are climbs is going to need to be advised on whether to frame their claim as a fatal accidents at dependency claim or whether to pursue a lost years claim, and you have there some considerations when advising Clearly the predicted data death is going to be relevant to whatever advice you give. Someone who has a very short time to live may well be more incentivized to ensure their family are provided for. Then someone pats who has 20 years left in which to spend their lost years damages. I think it's probably good idea in cases to prepare comparative schedules so that the line to make an informed choice alternatively provided the estimated date of death isn't very far away. The courts have in some cases been amenable to exercise their case management powers to grant interim payments in the value of the lost years played, and then to stay the claim on the German, the assessment of damages pending death. And, of course, once a claimant dies, a dependency claim for the additional sons can then be brought. Usually, of course, the courts and defendant two good reasons are averse to those sorts of surveys. But there are several examples where, to my of that nature is regarded as being conducive to dealing. The case is justly, which is of course what the overriding objective requires. Another option would be to provide for periodical payments for the dependence after the claimants death. Of course, that would obviously need be notified to the pay and the amount. Already, Pierre appear radical payments made to the claim and for their loss of earnings train so debt is the webinar on last year's claims.
Webinar
Slides
Quiz 
169 Users
5 Courses
2 Reviews
