Lost Earnings Guidance

Hello and welcome to this webinar on lost earnings. My name's Mickey Carter on. We're going to be taking a look at a number of issues relating to lost earnings, calculations and losses calculations, trying to work out what some of the tips and tactics might be to try and get the very best out. This fuel client I wanted to look at lost earnings calculations in a number of scenarios for those for self employed. So the self employed climate, those for partnerships, those claimants working in that manner, those who set up limited companies, for example. I wanted a talk, particularly about, of course, illegal earnings. But I guess I mean earnings that come from perhaps sources that the court might not be too keen on, and that might include people of not paying property tax. It might include the world moonlighting, if you like, with other full time jobs. How the courts look at those issues. What issues are we need also to consider employee benefits. Because, of course, not always is it simpler saying, Well, this is what somebody's lost terms of earnings. There may be other issues, tips, for example, that could be company cars various other benefits of employment. And then I thought, we take a look at the deductions, the appropriate deductions that should come from the calculation. You know what if funds have come in to the claim and post accident, which ones of those might need to be taken into account? What if the claimants got an insurance policy? They've taken out in the event that they're injured and that they can't work? What happens relating to that s So the idea is a guide to trying to fight some of the main heads of special damages for both climates and defendants who examine the arguments from both sides on. You know, of course, your schedule, if well drafted, will make recover ability a lot easier on will lead to a sort of a settlement. And, of course, we hope will avoid any allegations or fundamental dishonesty or exaggeration. Of course, when proceedings are served, the claimants required to serve a schedule of loss. We often refer to this, I think, don't we erroneously, really, as a schedule of special damage, which it isn't really. What it will include, of course, is details of any past and future expenses and losses it's a practice direction, 16.42 describes it as such on. Of course, it needs a statement of truth at the end. It's really the claimants primary tool, isn't it? To quantify the damage is being claimed. It should be both communicative and it should be persuasive on ideally short, neat, clear and powerful. The judge is going to study it when finalising the award on. You need to have that in mind all the time. I think that the judge will use it as a tool to come up with the amount necessary the claim of for the final award. I think words such as TB a or further details to be provided in due course should always be avoided if you can. The risk is that you will be vulnerable to allegations that the defendant doesn't have full details off the claim. And remember, even for consideration off the part 36 for example, consequences cost consequences. The court will take into account the information available to the parties at the time the offer was made. If there are gaps in your schedule, further details to be provided. TB a. That kind of thing, then you may find yourself vulnerable when it comes to a cost decision. Claimants need to understand, I think, don't they? That damages Aaron two distinct categories really general damages because none non financial losses on future losses on special damage past financial losses up to the day of trial and settlement is pretty important distinction but cause sometimes settlement offers. Proposals are made separately. And also, of course, because general damages and special damages attract interest at different rates and, in fact, over different periods. So it's important that the Shed two reflects that split pretty clearly the final schedule and then they will have been earlier. Ones along the journey is a much more detailed calculation, and it's going to include a narrative is going to call references to parts of the evidence on it would include detailed calculations. Pretty March 3 parts narrative, Past loss, Future loss on the content of the narrative is going to set the scene really for the schedule. Pretty basic information Day of birth age at the date of the accident age now marital status, Children, sports interest, working history, educational achievement that's relevant for future losses. On if there is ah bok for projection are in your schedule, it will explain the basis of which that's been done. It will deal with the claimants. Main injuries. Remaining disabilities on 30 March will base the loss on the prognosis. The the projection if you like. I think it's always helpful if the claimant sets out their approach to future loss multipliers so that it's clear that the relevant heads of loss when she get to that point in your calculation will just be there without need for further explanation. You've already explained how you've adopted your old suppliers. Calm emphasize this enough come way schedule only as good as the evidence that backs it. Always make sure that the claim is backed by evidence. What types of evidence do you need to substantiate the claim? Exaggerated schedules, obviously disastrous are they always were disastrous. But in the current climate, with fundamental dishonesty ringing in, areas were very conscious off keeping the schedule within. You know, the best the claimant could be looking at, but realistic. They need to be short. They need to be accurate on. Do you need to make sure you can support all those heads of lost with some evidence that phone. That's not going to pay the schedule in fall. So there's an element that the climate wants to present it as his best case scenario. But I think it's a It's a fine line that we're treading when preparing the schedule to ensure that it's accurate, but that it presents things in the claimants. Best Best life, Really. Some of the evidence to back it up will come from the climate zone statement on information from the claimant about their educational history, that qualifications. That, of course, will be important when it comes to things like our multipliers are their employment history, their earnings, what were their career plans set out and for what earnings have been lost to make sure that's clear and lines up with the other evidence. If there are incremental increases, promotions that would have been received that set out clearly that the climate deals in full with any jobs they've had since the accident, any work that commenced since the accident, if they've attempted to re train on the job search on the climate really meant many cases is the best the best person to give evidence off their own career, earnings and future plans. That's the best person on the details going to vary, of course, with the gravity of the case. The information required, for example, for a two week loss of earnings claim is going to be very different to the climate who's never going toe work again or who's earning capacities in pet. What must be clear, I think, is that what needs to be included in that statement is information about the effects that the injuries have had on the claimant on their ability to do their previous or their current work. Remember, if you're going to get off the ground, an argument that the claimant has a loss of earning capacity, or let's call it Smith and mansions to climb, that will be key. What about the way in which the injuries have affected the claim, its ability to do other types of work? There are other things that I would like to have done that the injuries are going to impair. How do they affect the claimants ability to do other times of work? Evidence on how vulnerable the claimants job is? Is the claimant like to lose their job? Why might that be? Could the injuries they have effective future job search again. All of this will feed into the possibility of a successful loss of earning capacity. Well, let's call it Smith of Manchester claim. What about evidence is to the plan retirement age before the accident? Has that been affected by the injuries? Will the claimant need to be thinking about retiring earlier? And if so, will that affect their retirement benefits? Is there an effect on the promotion prospects? Will the injuries limit that aunt? How have the injuries affected? The claimants enjoyment off their day to day life? All that's leading towards a possibility that the argument might be made that the claimant is disabled, perhaps within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. And you need to have both sides of that work on day today. Living. Let's take a look at past losses on what sort of things you might be, including within our consideration of past losses and because I was thinking of this as a checklist really lost earnings off course, the possibility that there might be a claim in respect of loss of marriage prospects, maybe within certain communities in certain cultures that facial scarring for example, will affect the claimants possibilities in terms of the marriage market, if you like. And how will that make me feel? How will I feel? Loss of Enjoyment of Holiday Your leisure if they went on a holiday after the accident attended the holiday, didn't lose the money that was paid for the holiday but didn't enjoy it very much. Might you have a claim for loss of enjoyment, any medical expenses, travel expenses that might have been incurred on ensuring that you've got good backup for that from the climate terms off evidence? Did the claimant to do a lot of D I Y or garden in car maintenance? Did they do things in the home? Home services and care? Might that be? Claims in respect of accommodation might be more or less in the bigger claims, but but might there be damaged items? Clothing, personal effects? Do they need any AIDS and equipment that might be in the long term or even in the short term? Miscellaneous, Always with a note of caution, I think because you're going to put miscellaneous heading in. You want to be specific about what that is? Could it be posted could it be travel? If it is, be specific as far as you can. It's important that it's there, even if it's small, because it might make, although difference in relation to that. The divvying up if you like. When it comes to a Part 36 offer. But don't keep it too vague. Make sure you pin down exactly what you're thinking off and in terms of the guide to the order of listing losses, you know, general damages, pain suffering, loss of amenity, loss of enjoyment of the job, loss of use of a vehicle on, then followed. I think by the list that we just looked at on the on the slide. Future losses. If you've got a claim, a serious is that again, you're going to be using a similar checklist, Really? Have you got lost earnings? Have you got loss of earning capacity? Is that being argued Will be a loss of pension? Are we thinking loss of marriage prospects? Is that future loss? Is there future losses of enjoyment holidays? What about home service care? What about D i Y. Medical expenses, travel expenses, groans with same list. Really? Might there be investment expenses that's controversial area The moment of big cases. Might you argue the climate will have expenses in accordance with that? Might there be call of protection expenses? E really Just going through that list and trying to work out? Might those losses being heard when it comes to lost earnings? Specifically, you need to ensure, of course, that your lost earnings claim is justified by the medical evidence. Make sure all the evidence supports the lost earnings. Came no sort of shortfall in the time period, that claimants lost earnings over make sure the evidence is clear and that it's consistent. We've seen many cases recently where judges have been deeply unimpressive, and that's an understatement. Where there's been inconsistencies, maybe even as early as from the claim notification form within the portal Really important. Ensure consistency. Be careful. It is possible that the client may tell you one thing about their earnings. When you get details from the employers, they might tell you another story. Be wary of that. Conscious of it might not be deliberate exaggeration or dishonesty. It may just be inconsistency. Medical records ensure that the requests for sit notes correlate with the dates given on the medical evidence so that it's there's consistency again. It doesn't have to be spot on, but where there are differences, look at them, explore them and find out the reasons why ensure that all your evidence supports the dates and the sums in the schedule of loss. If you were a defendant, you're gonna short ensure that you check the evidence. Supports the kindness claim for lost earnings. A full set of tax and national insurance figures, including on archive of rates for past years, is available on the Inland Revenue Website access that give you the reference to it there. The number of new dot gov dot UK on guidance on the Facts and Figures Handbook. The calculation is pretty much gonna be as follows very simply for lost earnings, isn't it? Is going to big pre accident net average times the period of loss minus the post accident earnings equals lost earnings on what are you gonna need? You're gonna need some sense off what the claimant was earning before the accident. Usually 13 weeks is a good period. You can build up on average over that time. Check with the Kleiman. Is it possible that during the 13 weeks prior to the accident. For some reason, they earned less then they would have earned during the absence. Maybe that's because things were busy, perhaps what during the period they were off on. In those circumstances, you might need to find comparative. Something will come to in a moment if the claimant did receive earnings during their absence. Ensure that proper credits given on get the claimant If you can't give you wage slips for the entire period, if they haven't got them, the employer ought to be able to provide them for you on Remember, within the portal. There is an obligation in the L claims for the employer to provide that that information to you. It must be ensured the overtime, bonus or commission are included in that net loss of earnings vigor. Make sure that the questionnaire or whatever is he sent the kind is really clear in drawing out that information compensation is going to be tax free. And so the figures to be user. Of course, those for net income. What kind of needs to understand that are clearly when it comes, I think, to proof How are you going to establish these losses, we can learn something, I think, from the case of Foreman and Williams from from last year in the high call on. What we can learn really is that, in this case, a fairly modest claimed to be honest by way of lost pension contributions. The claimant sought to recover his employer's pension contributions for the period was all the claim was just unable to evidence the employer's pension contributions At the hearing, the claimant, when asked, conceded he was unable to claim his own pension contribution losses as this would amount to double recovery. He'd already been given the award for lost earnings. There wasn't any evidence available. The judge had none for the sums that the defendant, the employer, would have contributed to the pension. There was no evidence there. How could the core award anything in the absence of any evidence about it? Not been a difficult matter. I'm sure to inquire about obtain evidence about how much was contributed by the employer. It may be small amounts, but remember, if there's a part 36 issue, then just a small amount like this might make ALS the difference. Make sure you get details of the employer's pension contributions the same time as you seek details of lost earnings. No, a lot of extra effort, and it makes a huge difference in terms of getting the calculation inaccurate condition. Let's take a look at the less straightforward situation in relation to lost earnings variations. You know, we've said it's pretty simple if you can evidence 13 weeks past pay and just describing just basically times about how long the came was off. But if the claim it's got variable income, you're gonna need to go down a different route. Maybe be because the work is seasonal, maybe a factories particular busy up to the Christmas period on. You're going to need to compare figures from the same period previous year, or you're gonna need to compare with fellow employees. Comparative earnest on is necessary to think about those comparative earners. One. Calculating what the climate could have earned but for the accident are this involves getting the wage details of those and other employees. I shouldn't be too much of a problem. Certainly, despite employs concerns past, possibly that data protection, that kind of thing. It shouldn't be a problem to get some details off comparatives one or two who can be referred to a simply employees a employees be on as long as the claimants happy that the comparison, if you like is a good one is accurate, then this should be a fairly reliable way of sorting out what the claim would have earned had they been working during the period they were away. I think this might be the moment for saying I'm something about reclaiming sick pay. We need to be clear and many claimants might not realize this. But there's, of course, no automatic right for the employer to reclaim the sick pay he's paid to his employees from 1/3 party that isn't a guarantee are consequently employers can recover sick pay, but they only could do so if it's a term of the employment contract that the climate pass. Um, the idea being well where you as the employer injured as a result, the negligence off 1/3 party, then the employer is entitled to receive recoupment off that element of sick pay paid As a result, the third parties negligence the kind of people who have this in their contracts from the enough will be lawyers of government employees, those working for large organizations. You need to let ask the employer whether they wish you to include such a claim on. Ask for a copy off the contract of employment on. But find out whether that's needs to be recoverable on the claimant has an obligation to repay the employer in the event that they recover it. I wanted to look at some off the ways in which people carry out that work on one of those is obviously self employment. There are 4.6 million people working for themselves a moment that's 15% of the workforce. If your client is self employed and pays tax under Schedule Day, then they're going to need to file a tax return within nine months of the tax year. They can choose the start of their tax here, and most will use the six of April. The first problem often arises in a claim for lost earnings, and that's the absence off clear evidence They're not going to be. Wage slips is not uncommon for self employed claim. It's not to know precisely what their net earnings are on. The claimant lawyer has to be fairly clear about this self employed people have complex accounts very often on those accounts might not even be adequate for tax purposes. The claimant may have to get an accountant to prepare the accounts. They're not gonna be out to recover the cost of that from the defendant, but it may need to be done. It can be a struggle to persuade the climate the courts only interested in their net losses rather than gross turnover. And you need evidence from the Kleiman about the work they did and how they earned their income. Early realistic assessment of the Net annual loss is essential to assessing Part 36 offers on indeed, making your own, of course, what you're going to need. You're going to need trading accounts and tax assessments for three years prior to the accident. The weeks the months for which the earnings were affected, the actual profits and expenses during that period, tax coding tax returns. Those things are necessary In order to be able to calculate these losses, self employed workers are expected to have prepared accounts, and I think that has to be clear to the came up from the beginning. Their accounts accompanied by the tax returns large would generally form the basis of a claim, although the probably be dependent on the role. The claim, and actually has in that business bottom line are self employed persons loss Is the reduction in net profit after tax on after national insurance? There is no clear way to set this out or no defined way to set this out in the particulars of claim. But failure to mention circumstances such as loss of profit or loss of a business opportunity will lead to that loss not being allowed at trials. That's important to be clear with the Klayman. What is it? The claimants lost? And sure, all of it is clearly pleaded. It may be that the claimants operating business as a sole trader on if that's the case may not be straightforward. But if it's the case, the income off the businesses, the income off the sole trader so it could be. There's lots of reasons, perhaps, where the income of the business has taken a downturn, it could be an economic boom not reflected in the accounts. Our sole traders off for more than six months. They'll often have to start from scratch. The best evidence will be a witness statement from somebody in a simmer. Similar position, for example, if it's a sole trader, another sole trader taxi driver saying what they earned during that period. Under the rules, judges are more hesitant to allow reliance on expert evidence off accounts on they'll need to the pretty good justification before the court will agree to an expert. And that goes for claimants and defendants. Actually, the courts have indicated in the past that a broad brush was dreaded. Words to a claimant approach will be taken to these losses on, you know, if it's a short period of time, it may be that the claimant who's the sole trader will employ a locum to carry out that work. Certainly the came it's gonna be entitled to cover the cost of employing that locum in order to maintain incoming profits. But the locum will actually have to have Bean employed. They can't be on idea that I could have employed a locum that will actually have to have been done if it's the climate spouse who's voluntarily provided services to keep the business going. The climate's not entitled to claim a our wage for the spouse in work case cold, hard weaken Hudson, back in 1999 established that only of money has actually been paid to the spouse cannot be claimed. That's very different to a care claim in that in that way, it can be hard to break into the client that the courts not going to be willing to deviate from previous accounts unless there's strong evidence to prove the country on it may be that you're our clients. Got holly predictions of what would have happened had you know, the accident no occurred and the business going on as usual, perhaps contracts that would have been entered into. But they will need to be strong. Good evidence that those things would have happened before the court will depart from the past pattern. It may be that the claimants way off operating their businesses by wear a partnership on many of the issues. In a part, you were going to be the same, actually, as a song trader. The difficulty, of course, with partnerships is that the other partners, if there are other partners around, will have no claim against the defendant. Quite clearly, if there's no partnership deed or its silent as to the division of profits, Section 24 parts about 80 90 says profits shared equally. One thing I think to bear in mind. Really. Um, certainly that claimants, the only one entitled to claim damages for the loss earnings he personally has suffered. But remember the claimant can only recover his share of the loss of profits. So in a 10 partner business, profits fall by £100,000. The claimants only lost is his shirt £10,000 of his share, One other point to make here. Be careful. The courts may well go behind the partnership on Decide that. Perhaps if the partnership is actually affection for a sole trader, the courts might be prepared to say, Well, actually, yes, it was a partnership, but in fact we can see the claimant spouse. I didn't really play a part in a business, and we're prepared to award the loss, the the claim of the losses bosses of the business because really, this was a sole trader bear in mind the other way around to case called Neil and Jones from 2000 to where the business was set up as a sole trader But in fact, when the court looked at the details of what had gone on on the claimants life partner on the money that's been put into the business by her, the court decided that actually what was going on was a partnership on a wall. He could recover WAAS his own losses. In other words, past losses had to be split in half. So be careful because the court may well go behind the vehicle that the claimants decided is the vehicle for their business. They may see that what's really going on is something quite different in limited companies. If that's what the claimant Hurst, you've got a separate. Of course, Legal entity has no rights to claim compensation. Of course, it doesn't from the defendant in the usual course, the directors of a limited company. We paid salaries like any other employees. Shareholders receive a dividend based on the company's profits on these two aspects are separate entities effectively, so the losses of the directors and the losses at the company are entirely separate again. But Erin, mind you might be up to sweat persuade the core, even though the vehicle for the company's a limited one that actually what's going on? Easier. In fact, the claimant is a sole trader or a partnership in a limited form. On I go back to the case of Esso Petroleum Ahmad um 2 1970 six for an authority for that to take a close look. The one man band. It's possible that the court may say the size of the company says to me that this is really a one man bad on, although formally it's a limited company, the losses are in fact going to be their losses off the company as a whole. It's not always going to happen on it's going to be important to try and establish the way in which the company was really being run day to die. Let me give an example. A case called Ashcroft and Curtain from 1971. The court appeal considered the case of a limited company whose potential profitability and decrease because of the injury off its proprietor, the court was sympathetic on said in a one man business of this kind, with an actively working managing director off undoubted efficiency, high probability that the injuries he sustained would not only drastically interfere with his quality of life but would have a damaging effect on business, which he created on which he controlled. In this particular case, the issue waas It was tricky. The accounts were Paul on. It wasn't easy for the court to, by use of an accountant, calculate the loss suffered. The court conceded some loss must have occurred, but they didn't award any amount the loss of profit. But it's possible to persuade the cool that the losses of a limited company are in fact, really the losses off a sole trader. Think about parks. You know what pluses might come to the claimant from his unemployment? And in Downing and Peter Bergen, Stanford, it was a military career that the claimant had on the argument. Waas. You know, what about continuity of an education allowance? In this particular case, the court took the view that because the military were contributing to the claimants Children's education, the disruption to that child's education reciting as a result of the parents military postings, there was no need for the climate to be compensated for that payment towards education of the military had made the climate was no longer in the military. They claimants Children. We're not gonna have that disruption to the education. So it wasn't a loss that was recoverable. The courts concerned with actual loss rather than theoretical loss. The climate must be put in the position he would have been had he not been injured. They're gonna be concerned with what's actually being lost. Let's take a look up Morgan on Ministry of Defence again, claims against the military in this context are common because, of course, of the extra benefits that come from being in the military are loss of ability to let out his home. The Clem, claiming left, let out his home as a result of being posted abroad or living in married quarters on the property, was let the court found that was a considerable park off subsidised, married, married accommodation at. But most of the time the property would have been let the court took into account £3000 a year for that additional motoring costs and accommodation, the claimant spent 4.5 days a week away from home substantial additional mileage that was agreed. Additional accommodation costs and food costs came out working away from home. The court thought £15 a day. I was an adequate compensated for that. Attention was paid to the fact that the Army mess would be subsidized free dental and health care. The whole family in the claimant had the advantage of free on available dental care in the Army. On the judge awarded damages for premiums for dental care on Bopara subscriptions. So looking realistically, a Walt Bean lost same case clothing, work, clothes and a mess kit. Now the climate has to buy his own clothes. £800 a year. Leisure facilities of a gym included again, aren't the court took the view that entitle the full cost of that advantage, but no claims in respect off his family members, families, wife, the claimants wife. Sorry, mobile phone. The judge allowed the claim for the cost of a mobile phone. The climate didn't have a phone in the Army, and it was frowned upon. But by the time the trial mobile phones were so common, it was likely that the claim would have had a mobile phone on the court decided No, not future costs. Private education, we said in this particular case, but army would have paid for the cost of serving officers being educated at boarding school. The court took the view that it was something intimately connected with family with with Army life. Let's say not so much an education allowance as an a disruption allowance on the court said. Looking at that benefit, it's related to the employment service in the Army was ended. The disruption occasion by that service was ended. The park, the cause of the perk go together. No allowance. So think it through what's gonna go on? Continuing to be a loss cross of Merton In that particular case, the court considered damages to a high ranking police officer. London Allowance. The claimant worked in London. The package includes the London allowance to allow the extra costs off cost off rent. The argument was, well, they're only being paid because the claimants employment required in to live in a certain geographical area. The court. The view that the claimant was paid us total sum of money in respect to work. Why he was paid. It doesn't matter. Once his employer decided on that sum, it was anticipated that the money will be used by the claimant. That's the total sum is lost. That's what is entitled to Hopkinson Ministry of Defence Again. Food semen Who's injured? Injuries prevented In returning to see free food while on the ship, the judge found it was appropriate £1000 a year for past losses. Would it be awarded for future off cause? Loss of food was discounted accordingly. A question mark over it. But consider all these arguments when it comes to these sums of money. Shanks and Swarm Hunter Electrician's worked in Australia. Accommodation costs were paid utility bills and a company car. The court awarded damages on the basis off £4000 for accommodation at 1500 for vehicle expenses. In summary, fringe benefits have real value and they represent real loss. Lots of benefits, from food to accommodation to transport. Need to be considered, proved the loss in the value of the loss and ensure that the loss of benefits represent the rial value off the loss. Let's take a last look. Undeclared income. Illegal income. This is tricky. The climate's incomers from an illegal source. The doctrine extra pie cows there is going to kick in the course of not going to compensate the claimant for their illegality. If the climate somebody who perhaps hasn't paid top full tax or national insurance on their earnings. In theory, that's not a bar to recovery. The case of Dollar NSC lines you 1981 says that the truth of the matter is the reality is the court may not accept the higher earnings that the claimant claims on the judge or the defendant may well involve the inland revenue as to what the climate was really earning. And it may be as the claimants lawyer, you may get into difficulties with consideration of reporting your own car in under the proceeds clothing that most claimants need to understand undeclared earnings as an area they absolutely don't want to be involved in trying to recover. Lastly, deductions. Insurance policies. If the climate has paid the premium for an insurance policy, terms of which means he's a types receive payment. If he sustains an injury, then the claimant doesn't have to give credit for sums received. If the policy problems have not been paid by the claimant. Michael's further problems see the case of Perelli in John Gadjah from 2004. We need to see who's paid these premiums. It's the claimant. That's fine the climate keeps the money. Charitable payments, if money is received by the claimant, is a charitable payment collection from friends or public collection, then the case of parrying, Cleaver says the benevolence exception kicks in. It really isn't okay for the defendant to receive some kind of payback for money that collected in good faith by the claimants, friends, family or even the public at large. When it comes to benefit deductions, we need to consider the DSS the compensation recovery unit I've set out for you. The principal. I'm sure you know it or benefit deduction. No benefits are offset against are offset against injury damages, so injury damages are ring fenced on the benefits. Of course, Europe's offset against the heads of damage for the kind of loss the benefits been paid for. So loss of earnings, cost of care, loss of mobility. Let's take a look. All right. The current slide, which looks at the amount of compensation paid on the amount of the type of benefit that will come off. We've already seen that NASA is ring fenced on. We see on that table the benefits that will be deducted from certain heads of loss they won't be deducted from any others. Just those heads of Los Bear in mind. Certificates of benefit are not always correct on that. Recoupment may apply to payments made by the compensate er on. So you need to check with the climate that those benefits that you have details about all accurate. Next slide. You'll see. I've done an example. Calculation example off What benefits have been received by the claimant? Questions are How much will the defendant have to pay under the stiff Icka? How much will be deducted from the claimants? Damages on what will the climate receive? Well, the defendants got to be paid. Got to pay £20,000 to the DSS deducted from the claimants. Damages will be £12,000. The climate will receive £10,000. It's important to be clear the defendant may have a bill to pay to the DSS, but those sums will not all be deducted from the claimant. Some of it will come from the defendant's pocket. Hope that's been helpful. Andi, that's the end of our webinar today. Thank you very much.