A. VERSUS THE ARCHBISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM (1) THE TRUSTEES OF THE BIRMINGHAM ARCHDIOCESE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH [2005] EWHC 1361 (QB)
Child abuse compensation - Quantum
FACTS:-
The Claimant was born on the 28th May 1970 and at the date of judgment he was aged 35. Between 1977 and 1988, between the ages of 7 and 18, he was sexually abused by a Catholic Priest – Father Christopher Clonan. The abuse was regular, about one to three times a week. It began with indecent touching and progressed to mutual masturbation, buggery and oral sex. The Defendant admitted liability and the court had to decide the quantum of damages. He had obtained an award of £12,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in 1993.
HELD:-
Mr Justice Christopher Clarke gave a lengthy and considered judgment. The Claimant’s family were devout Roman Catholics and the Claimant was the second youngest of 7 children. A told no-one of the abuse until 1992 at which point his life fell apart and he suffered serious mental illness. At the time of judgment he was living in supported accommodation in Northern Ireland and under regular psychiatric review. At some point prior to the 1st March 2005, the Claimant’s sister was appointed by the Court of Protection as A’s Receiver. The judge had to decide the following issues:-
It was agreed by the parties that the Claimant was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder but there was a disagreement as to whether the Claimant was suffering from schizophrenia, and if he was so suffering, the cause of that schizophrenia.
General damages for pain and suffering
£50,000 was agreed between the parties and the court gave approval to that sum.
Past loss of earnings
The Claimant left school at 16 without qualifications. He had worked prior to that time as a trainee hairdresser. After leaving school he first worked at a glass factory. He then had an injury and was off sick, before working for another company for six months. He then joined an interior decorating company and began to learn how to be a fibrous plasterer. He did well in this occupation. He worked there in 1991 and 1992 but then in July had his breakdown. There was evidence before the court from his employers and also from the DHSS. There some doubt about precisely when he had concluded his employment as a fibrous plasterer, but the judge held that this employment had come to an end in August 1991.
The Claimant and Defendants lawyers had alternative figures for past loss of earnings. The judge began by estimating what the Claimant was likely to have earned if he had returned to his job as a fibrous plasterer. He found that the Claimant would have returned to work in 1992 either to his old employers or some equivalent job. The impression of the Claimant was that he was a “worker, not a slouchier” and his family background supported that conclusion. He calculated a total net figure of £159,610 for loss of earnings from 1992 to 2005. However he applied a 10% discount and a deduction for transport costs in the sum of £5200, to produce a figure of £138,450.
Loss of earnings capacity
The judge said that he would have expected the Claimant to work until the age of 65. However his ability to earn might be affected by:-
The judge applied the Ogden multiplier to 65 for a man aged 35 using a 2.5% rate of return, which were 20.57. There was then a reduction in the Ogden Tables for contingencies other than mortality, which was produced by multiplying the multiplier of 20.57 by 0.96 - 19.75. This was further reduced to produce a multiplier of 19.5 to reflect the possibility that in later life, the Claimant might take time off work. The multiplicand used was the net figure that the Claimant would have earned in 2004 to 2005.
The judge then estimated that by the time the Claimant was 35, he would have received a 20% pay increase and by 45 a further 10% pay increase. The multiplier of 19.5 was then split between the multiplier for the first ten years (8.86) and the balance of the multiplier of 19.5 for the remainder of his working life (10.64). From this he would deduct travelling expenses to produce a figure of £432,994.
Residual earning capacity/future accommodation and support/employability
A suffered from PTSD. The judge considered A’s mental health history and the link between that his PTSD and his schizophrenia. He said that it was never easy to compartmentalise mental illness, but he concluded that A was suffering from both PTSD and a form of schizophrenia.
He awarded A £5,000 for a course of cognitive behavioural therapy.
There was an issue as to whether the Claimant was a patient. The judge considered the cases of Martin Masterman-Lister v. Brutton & Co. [2002] EWCA Civ 1889 and Russell Mitchell v. Ryan Alasia [2005] EWHC 11.
The Defendants had not specifically pleaded in their Defence that A was not a patient. The judge did not think that precluded them from raising the issue. If the Claimant wanted future receivership costs the onus is on him to show that he was and would remain a patients for the period over which he claimed that those costs would extend. Furthermore the decision of the Court of Protection (deciding that A was a patient) could not foreclose the question as to whether A was now and would indefinitely remain a patient. The more recent psychiatric evidence indicated that whilst A required some advice from family members, he displayed a normal mental state. Two of the psychiatrist agreed that no legal intervention was required in his dealing with his award. The judge concluded that A was not incapable of managing his affairs and accordingly he was not entitled to future receivership costs.
A reduction from the damages was made in respect of the possibility that A would stay at the residential homes where he lived at present. This would produce a saving in utilities bills in the sum of £7,000.
The judge then considered residual earnings, which related to the work that the Claimant might be able to do in the future. This should be deducted from the Past Loss of Earnings claim. The judge accepted the evidence of one of the psychiatrists that the Claimant would probably be capable of some paid work, in a sheltered environment for up to 2 half days a week. It was unlikely that he would graduate up to 4 half days a week. The judge awarded a lump sum of £15,000.
The judge considered the care provided by A’s family and he considered the case of Anita Giamabarone v. Sunworld Holiday [2004] EWCA Civ 158 which said that care should be “well beyond the ordinary call of duty”, or “distinctly beyond that which is part of the ordinary regime of family life.”
A detailed Schedule had been provided. The judge ordered a calculation on past care and awarded £9,240 for future care.
Summary
General damages - £50,000
Past loss of earnings - £138,450
Future loss of earnings - £432,994
Less
Residual earning capacity - £15,000
Saved utilities - £7,000
Plus
Cognitive therapy - £5,000
Past care – to be calculated
Future care - £9240
Interest was reserved for future consideration.
There was an issue as to whether A’s use of cannabis and other drugs such as ecstasy and amphetamines should be taken into account. It had not been suggested that the emergency of A’s mental illness had been caused by the use of cannabis, and the judge did not find that it was. The defendants had not identified any aspect of A’s loss that was likely to be caused by A’s use of cannabis.
Child abuse compensation - Quantum
FACTS:-
The Claimant was born on the 28th May 1970 and at the date of judgment he was aged 35. Between 1977 and 1988, between the ages of 7 and 18, he was sexually abused by a Catholic Priest – Father Christopher Clonan. The abuse was regular, about one to three times a week. It began with indecent touching and progressed to mutual masturbation, buggery and oral sex. The Defendant admitted liability and the court had to decide the quantum of damages. He had obtained an award of £12,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in 1993.
HELD:-
Mr Justice Christopher Clarke gave a lengthy and considered judgment. The Claimant’s family were devout Roman Catholics and the Claimant was the second youngest of 7 children. A told no-one of the abuse until 1992 at which point his life fell apart and he suffered serious mental illness. At the time of judgment he was living in supported accommodation in Northern Ireland and under regular psychiatric review. At some point prior to the 1st March 2005, the Claimant’s sister was appointed by the Court of Protection as A’s Receiver. The judge had to decide the following issues:-
- General damages for pain and suffering
- Past loss of earnings
- Future loss of earnings
- Future accommodation and support costs
- Loss of means tested benefits
- Past care services provided by family members
- Future care services to be provided by the family
- Receivership costs
- Interest
It was agreed by the parties that the Claimant was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder but there was a disagreement as to whether the Claimant was suffering from schizophrenia, and if he was so suffering, the cause of that schizophrenia.
General damages for pain and suffering
£50,000 was agreed between the parties and the court gave approval to that sum.
Past loss of earnings
The Claimant left school at 16 without qualifications. He had worked prior to that time as a trainee hairdresser. After leaving school he first worked at a glass factory. He then had an injury and was off sick, before working for another company for six months. He then joined an interior decorating company and began to learn how to be a fibrous plasterer. He did well in this occupation. He worked there in 1991 and 1992 but then in July had his breakdown. There was evidence before the court from his employers and also from the DHSS. There some doubt about precisely when he had concluded his employment as a fibrous plasterer, but the judge held that this employment had come to an end in August 1991.
The Claimant and Defendants lawyers had alternative figures for past loss of earnings. The judge began by estimating what the Claimant was likely to have earned if he had returned to his job as a fibrous plasterer. He found that the Claimant would have returned to work in 1992 either to his old employers or some equivalent job. The impression of the Claimant was that he was a “worker, not a slouchier” and his family background supported that conclusion. He calculated a total net figure of £159,610 for loss of earnings from 1992 to 2005. However he applied a 10% discount and a deduction for transport costs in the sum of £5200, to produce a figure of £138,450.
Loss of earnings capacity
The judge said that he would have expected the Claimant to work until the age of 65. However his ability to earn might be affected by:-
- Periods of unemployment either for want for work or because he chose to take time off work
- Injury or incapacity
- Increases in wages beyond those necessary to reflect inflation
- The possibility that after 55, he might take some less well paid job
The judge applied the Ogden multiplier to 65 for a man aged 35 using a 2.5% rate of return, which were 20.57. There was then a reduction in the Ogden Tables for contingencies other than mortality, which was produced by multiplying the multiplier of 20.57 by 0.96 - 19.75. This was further reduced to produce a multiplier of 19.5 to reflect the possibility that in later life, the Claimant might take time off work. The multiplicand used was the net figure that the Claimant would have earned in 2004 to 2005.
The judge then estimated that by the time the Claimant was 35, he would have received a 20% pay increase and by 45 a further 10% pay increase. The multiplier of 19.5 was then split between the multiplier for the first ten years (8.86) and the balance of the multiplier of 19.5 for the remainder of his working life (10.64). From this he would deduct travelling expenses to produce a figure of £432,994.
Residual earning capacity/future accommodation and support/employability
A suffered from PTSD. The judge considered A’s mental health history and the link between that his PTSD and his schizophrenia. He said that it was never easy to compartmentalise mental illness, but he concluded that A was suffering from both PTSD and a form of schizophrenia.
He awarded A £5,000 for a course of cognitive behavioural therapy.
There was an issue as to whether the Claimant was a patient. The judge considered the cases of Martin Masterman-Lister v. Brutton & Co. [2002] EWCA Civ 1889 and Russell Mitchell v. Ryan Alasia [2005] EWHC 11.
The Defendants had not specifically pleaded in their Defence that A was not a patient. The judge did not think that precluded them from raising the issue. If the Claimant wanted future receivership costs the onus is on him to show that he was and would remain a patients for the period over which he claimed that those costs would extend. Furthermore the decision of the Court of Protection (deciding that A was a patient) could not foreclose the question as to whether A was now and would indefinitely remain a patient. The more recent psychiatric evidence indicated that whilst A required some advice from family members, he displayed a normal mental state. Two of the psychiatrist agreed that no legal intervention was required in his dealing with his award. The judge concluded that A was not incapable of managing his affairs and accordingly he was not entitled to future receivership costs.
A reduction from the damages was made in respect of the possibility that A would stay at the residential homes where he lived at present. This would produce a saving in utilities bills in the sum of £7,000.
The judge then considered residual earnings, which related to the work that the Claimant might be able to do in the future. This should be deducted from the Past Loss of Earnings claim. The judge accepted the evidence of one of the psychiatrists that the Claimant would probably be capable of some paid work, in a sheltered environment for up to 2 half days a week. It was unlikely that he would graduate up to 4 half days a week. The judge awarded a lump sum of £15,000.
The judge considered the care provided by A’s family and he considered the case of Anita Giamabarone v. Sunworld Holiday [2004] EWCA Civ 158 which said that care should be “well beyond the ordinary call of duty”, or “distinctly beyond that which is part of the ordinary regime of family life.”
A detailed Schedule had been provided. The judge ordered a calculation on past care and awarded £9,240 for future care.
Summary
General damages - £50,000
Past loss of earnings - £138,450
Future loss of earnings - £432,994
Less
Residual earning capacity - £15,000
Saved utilities - £7,000
Plus
Cognitive therapy - £5,000
Past care – to be calculated
Future care - £9240
Interest was reserved for future consideration.
There was an issue as to whether A’s use of cannabis and other drugs such as ecstasy and amphetamines should be taken into account. It had not been suggested that the emergency of A’s mental illness had been caused by the use of cannabis, and the judge did not find that it was. The defendants had not identified any aspect of A’s loss that was likely to be caused by A’s use of cannabis.