G v K (Young mechanic injured in workplace accident)

The claimant (G), an able and well-liked young motor mechanic, suffered a severe injury to his ankle as a result of his employer’s breach of duty. Having undergone several operations, G had not recovered full function. The parties’ orthopaedic experts agreed G will require an ankle fusion within 5 or 10 years, and also agreed a 5 to 10% risk of below knee amputation by the age of 65 as a result of chronic infection associated with chronic pain. G has not been able to return to his previous employment and has moved laterally to a full-time position as a sales advisor in the organization’s parts department. He is married with a young family living in a house purchased with a mortgage.

There had been an unsuccessful Joint Settlement Meeting. The trial was looming, and the parties’ positions remained significantly divergent, when they agreed to IE.

The primary issue was whether G’s prospects of promotion and earning significant overtime were substantially reduced by him transferring to the sales department. The employer’s insurers contended that there was no significant loss on the grounds that G had returned to full time work and, by providing comparators, indicated that his earning prospects had not been significantly reduced.

The Evaluator, David Pittaway QC, spoke at length with G and the employer. Having forensically analysed the comparators, the Evaluator assisted the parties to an understanding that the comparators were not true comparators by reference to overtime claimed. There was a significant loss of earnings. However, analysis by the Evaluator also revealed that G’s pleaded case had not adequately allowed for his actual prospects of promotion.

Additional issues as to future care and single-story accommodation were resolved following discussions between the Evaluator, G and his lawyers.

The entire claim was resolved without G having to be cross-examined at trial, and with his relationship with his employer intact.