Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1657
Court of Appeal, 9 November 2001. Also reported at [2002] PIQR Q5.
The Court of Appeal upheld a damages award which valued a wife’s unpaid care on the basis that her husband needed a full-time carer. The assessment was not confined to minutes spent giving physical assistance. Necessary emotional support and availability could form part of the care required by his injuries. The employer’s challenges to the awards for future earnings and accommodation also failed.
Facts and the award
Steven Evans was seriously injured in a fall while working as a roofer for Pontypridd Roofing on 31 January 1995. Liability was settled on the basis that he would recover 85% of his damages. The appeal concerned the amount of compensation, rather than a fresh determination of responsibility for the accident.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
His injuries led to severe, permanent pain, restricted movement and extremely severe depression. He could not work again and needed extensive help with daily activities. His wife provided physical assistance and support during the day and night. The trial judge found overwhelming evidence that he required care around the clock.
The judge assessed total damages, including interest, at £923,710.31 before the agreed liability reduction, producing an award of £785,153.76. The employer appealed against the assessments for future earnings, past and future care, and accommodation. The £100,000 award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity was not challenged.
Valuing unpaid care
The employer argued that the care award should mainly reflect additional physical services required by the injury and supported by medical evidence. It disputed payment for companionship and emotional support, and argued that ordinary household activities should not be counted as full-time care. It also sought a one-third deduction from commercial care rates instead of the judge’s 25% deduction.
May LJ explained that the purpose of the award was to enable proper recompense for the voluntary carer’s services. Following Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350, compensation for those services was recovered by the injured claimant to be held for the carer. The court treated the practical valuation guidance in Housecroft v Burnett [1986] 1 All ER 332 as still useful.
The first task was to identify the care made necessary by the injuries. That might involve only a few hours each week. In a severe case, however, assistance could be needed unpredictably throughout the day and night, making a full-time carer necessary even though physical tasks did not occupy every minute.
The court therefore rejected an inflexible calculation based solely on timed nursing tasks or physical assistance. Nor did every service have to be medically prescribed. On the evidence, Mrs Evans was providing full-time care, including necessary psychological support. The fact that she sometimes did ordinary household work did not undermine that finding.
There was an important limit: a relative’s presence for other reasons did not automatically amount to compensable full-time care. The assessment still had to identify services resulting from the injury and be justified by the individual facts.
Commercial rates and respite care
Commercial rates could provide a starting point for valuing unpaid services, but adjustments might be appropriate because the services were not actually being purchased. The court refused to prescribe a universal percentage deduction. Tax, National Insurance and other relevant differences could inform the assessment, but the task remained to reach a fair overall figure.
The 25% deduction used by the trial judge was within his permissible judgment. The employer had not shown that a larger deduction was required. This upheld that particular assessment; it did not establish 25% as compulsory in other cases.
The court also upheld provision for respite care. Although Mrs Evans said that only she could care for her husband, the expert evidence and the demands of providing care over many years justified allowing for breaks and replacement care.
The other grounds and outcome
The future-earnings challenge concerned the multiplier: the employer proposed 15 rather than the judge’s 16. The judge had already allowed for contingencies and used a working life to age 60. The resulting assessment fell within the range justified by the evidence, so the court would not interfere.
The evidence also justified accommodation with four bedrooms, taking account of the family’s needs and the possibility of a carer staying. The court considered the judge’s assumed rent without the accident too low. However, £15,422 of accepted additional expenses had mistakenly been omitted from the judgment. Any reduction justified by correcting the rent assumption would be smaller than that omission, which was available as a set-off against a successful challenge.
May LJ dismissed the appeal, with Rix and Ward LJJ agreeing. The case illustrates the need to assess the actual demands of unpaid care as a whole, while requiring evidence that those demands arise from the injury.
Full judgment: Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1657.
