This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations .(January 2019) |
Van Wees v Karkour & Anor | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Justice |
Decided | 14 February 2007 |
Citation(s) | [2007] EWHC 165 (QB) |
Transcript(s) | transcript at BAILII |
Cases cited |
|
Legislation cited |
|
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Mr Justice Langstaff |
Keywords | |
|
Van Wees v Karkour (1) and Walsh (2) [2007] EWHC 165 (QB) was an English law case of importance because of its implications in the assessment of damages. As such, it has relevance in particular to personal injury solicitors and employment consultants.
Van Wees suffered a head injury and post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) in a road traffic accident whilst riding as a pillion passenger on a motorscooter. She claimed that the "loss of edge" caused by the accident had been a contributory factor which then led to dismissal from her employment. Her schedule of loss claimed for just under £10 million.
The Hon. Mr Justice Brian Langstaff awarded £1,105,012, saying that had she not been injured, she had a greater prospect of being retained in her employment. His judgment involved the assessment of the subtle effects of mild brain injury on someone who remained of superior intelligence and capable of achieving high earnings even after her accident. He determined that the injury had caused a "loss of edge" and that the claimant would have been capable of even higher earnings but for the accident. The court also found that the injury had been a contributory factor in the claimant losing the high level corporate job that she had started following her injury.
The key diagnostic indicator in subtle brain injury cases is post-traumatic amnesia. In the summary, the judge carefully defined PTA. The crucial point is that it is not a total lack of memory. Rather, it is characterized by "islands of memory, punctuating periods of loss of memory". It begins at the accident and lasts until the return of normal complete memory.
He also ruled that, whilst not accepting that she was consciously exaggerating her condition, he found that the accident had become "a handy explanation to herself as to the reason for the inability of her career to progress as she had expected it would". This case therefore also illustrates that a thorough investigation of a claimant's perceived medical condition as well as his or her own personal expectations can make a substantial difference to awards at trial.
The judge also had to make a decision based on the sex of the claimant. The defence had argued that since women earn less than men, including the upper echelons of management in the private sector, this should be reflected in the award.
The claimant suggested that this meant that a woman will throughout her foreseeable years of employment be at a similar disadvantage to that to which she is now subject, and has been since and despite the Equal Pay Act 1970 which came into force on 29 December 1975. In effect, the court was being asked to base an award for future loss of earnings upon an assumption that discrimination will continue, and that legislation counteracting discrimination in pay will be flouted. The court would thus be complicit in discrimination and the perpetuation of inequality. Justice Brian Langstaff ruled as follows:
...the court must be entitled to take note of the fact that throughout the professions greater numbers of women are achieving high positions, and with them commensurate salaries; that equal pay claims have been prominent in the recent past, particularly in the professions and amongst high earners in the city; and that the future is one in which the gap is narrowing. It must take account of the fact that in those positions in which men and women are doing equal work, a woman may not be paid a lesser salary without her having a claim for the shortfall against her employer (the contract of every woman includes a term to that effect, inserted by the Equal Pay Act 1970, section 1). Accordingly, I think it right to reflect in the sum which I shall award the fact that the claimant has (at present) the lower salary expectations of a woman, but within a few years should earn commensurately with a man. To take any other approach would be to enshrine current differences in pay which are gender based, rather than recognise their continuing and gradual attrition.
At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.
Repressed memory is an alleged psychiatric phenomenon which involves an inability to recall autobiographical information, usually of a traumatic or stressful nature. The concept originated in psychoanalytic theory where repression is understood as a defense mechanism that excludes painful experiences and unacceptable impulses from consciousness. Repressed memory is a controversial concept, particularly in legal contexts where it has been used to impugn individuals unfairly and inaccurately, leading to substantial harm. At the same time, an American Psychological Association working group indicated that while "most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them, it is possible for memories of abuse that have been forgotten for a long time to be remembered". Although Sigmund Freud later revised his theory, he initially held that memories of childhood sexual trauma were often repressed yet the traumas unconsciously influenced behavior and emotional responding.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex. It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
Equal pay for equal work is the concept of labour rights that individuals in the same workplace be given equal pay. It is most commonly used in the context of sexual discrimination, in relation to the gender pay gap. Equal pay relates to the full range of payments and benefits, including basic pay, non-salary payments, bonuses and allowances. Some countries have moved faster than others in addressing equal pay.
In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is the New Zealand Crown entity responsible for administering the country's no-fault accidental injury compensation scheme, commonly referred to as the ACC scheme. The scheme provides financial compensation and support to citizens, residents, and temporary visitors who have suffered personal injuries.
Myra Colby Bradwell was an American publisher and political activist. She attempted in 1869 to become the first woman to be admitted to the Illinois bar to practice law, but was denied admission by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1870 and the United States Supreme Court in 1873, in rulings upholding a separate women's sphere. Bradwell had founded and published Chicago Legal News from 1868, reporting on the law and continued that work. Meanwhile, influenced by her case, in 1872 the Illinois legislature passed a state law prohibiting gender discrimination in admission to any occupation or profession.
Breaking the chain refers in English law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish. Even if the defendant can be shown to have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act breaks the chain of causation between that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by the claimant.
In the English law of negligence, the acts of the claimant may give the defendant a defence to liability, whether in whole or part, if those acts unreasonably add to the loss.
Lilly McDaniel Ledbetter is an American activist who was the plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. regarding employment discrimination. Two years after the Supreme Court decided that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow employers to be sued for pay discrimination more than 180 days after an employee's first paycheck, the United States Congress passed a fair pay act in her name to remedy this issue, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. She has since become a women's equality activist, public speaker, and author. In 2011, Ledbetter was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame.
An employment consultant is an expert witness who advises courts and tribunals on employment related issues such as earnings, labour market analysis, residual earning capacity, and retraining. The main area involved is that of personal injury litigation where loss of earnings is an important component of a claim. Employment consultants give evidence on pre and post accident earnings, thus establishing a loss of earnings formula. Employment consultants also deal with sex, race and disability discrimination, matrimonial matters and any case involving a loss or dispute of earnings. Increasingly, pay parity is a growth area.
Post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) is a state of confusion that occurs immediately following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in which the injured person is disoriented and unable to remember events that occur after the injury. The person may be unable to state their name, where they are, and what time it is. When continuous memory returns, PTA is considered to have resolved. While PTA lasts, new events cannot be stored in the memory. About a third of patients with mild head injury are reported to have "islands of memory", in which the patient can recall only some events. During PTA, the patient's consciousness is "clouded". Because PTA involves confusion in addition to the memory loss typical of amnesia, the term "post-traumatic confusional state" has been proposed as an alternative.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:
Amnesia is a deficit in memory caused by brain damage or disease, but it can also be caused temporarily by the use of various sedatives and hypnotic drugs. The memory can be either wholly or partially lost due to the extent of damage that was caused. There are two main types of amnesia: retrograde amnesia and anterograde amnesia. Retrograde amnesia is the inability to retrieve information that was acquired before a particular date, usually the date of an accident or operation. In some cases the memory loss can extend back decades, while in others the person may lose only a few months of memory. Anterograde amnesia is the inability to transfer new information from the short-term store into the long-term store. People with anterograde amnesia cannot remember things for long periods of time. These two types are not mutually exclusive; both can occur simultaneously.
The Law Reform Act 1945 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, which allows a judge to apportion liability for compensatory damages as he feels to be "just and equitable" between a tortfeasor and an injured person who was partly to blame. Section 1(1) of the Act provides:
"Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person(s), a claim in respect of that damage will not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage."
The Westmead Post-traumatic Amnesia Scale (WPTAS) is a brief bedside standardised test that measures length of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) in people with traumatic brain injury. It consists of twelve questions that assess orientation to person, place and time, and ability to consistently retain new information from one day to another. It is administered once a day, each and every day, until the patient achieves a perfect score across three consecutive days, after which the individual is deemed to have emerged from post-traumatic amnesia. PTA may be deemed to be over on the first day of a recall of 12 for those who have been in PTA for greater than four weeks. The WPTAS is the most common post-traumatic amnesia scale used in Australia and New Zealand.
Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 170 is a UK labour law case, concerning the illegality in the contract of employment.
Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was brought by a widower who was denied survivor benefits on the grounds that he had not been receiving at least one-half support from his wife when she died. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the court, ruling unconstitutional the provision of the Social Security Act which set forth a gender-based distinction between widows and widowers, whereby Social Security Act survivors benefits were payable to a widower only if he was receiving at least half of his support from his late wife, while such benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband were payable to his widow regardless of dependency. The Court found that this distinction deprived female wage earners of the same protection that a similarly situated male worker would have received, violating due process and equal protection.
Thompson & Ors v Arnold[2007] EWHC 1875 (QB), was a law on damages case where the existing case law reaffirmed that damages awarded for a claim for personal injury were deemed to have already been awarded, even if death ensued as a consequence of personal injury. Where a claimant had settled their damages claim, or pursued it to trial, their dependants would have no right of action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 if the injury later proved fatal. Langstaff J. held that Read v Great Eastern Railway had been correctly decided as a matter of statutory construction and neither Article 6 nor Article 8 of the ECHR had been infringed. The claim was dismissed.