I have recently drafted two articles regarding Smith v Manchester awards. Firstly in what circumstances they may be appropriate, as opposed to using a multiplier and multiplicand approach. In the Second article I considered guidance as to how to value such a claim. However, with the even more recent publication of the Ogden 8 tables, do those concepts still stand?

The guidance for the tables has been re-written since Ogden 7.
Paragraph 59 (page 24) sets out that using the multiplier/ multiplicand approach, together with taking account of any changes in tables A – D will:
"... in the majority of cases enable a more accurate assessment to be made of the mitigation of loss. However, there may be some cases when the Smith v Manchester or Blamire approach remains applicable or otherwise where a precise mathematical approach is inapplicable (29). For example, there may be no real alternative to a Smith v Manchester or Blamire award where there is insufficient evidence or too many imponderables for the judge to be able to make the findings necessary to support the conventional multiplicand/multiplier approach (30)."
Reference (29) is to Billett v MOD [2015] EWCA Civ 773; [2016] PIQR Q1 at para 99; and Ward v Allies and Morrison Architects [2012] EWCA Civ 1287; [2013] PIQR Q1
Reference (30) is to Irani v Duchon [2019] EWCA Civ 1846, per Hamblen LJ at para 22.
Further, at paragraph 98 (6) (page 35) of the Ogden 8 guidance, it sets out that where a multiplier and multiplicand approach is undertaken, and the differences in pre and post-injury employment and disability status (tables A – D) are taken into account in the calculations, then no further separate Smith v Manchester award is usually necessary.
However, it also set out in the same paragraph that:
“there may still be cases where a Smith v Manchester award is appropriate”.
It appears that there is no change significant change from Ogden 7 to Ogden 8 as to regards Smith v Manchester awards. There remain circumstances when departing from the ‘normal’ multiplier/ multiplicand approach and so using Blamire and Smith v Manchester awards may be more appropriate.
This is another case where the court (and parties) have had to consider findings of fact in relation to historic events, in this case with respect to a fatal mesothelioma claim.
The Claimant sustained injuries as a result of a fall in a car park adjacent to the Defendant’s Waitrose store in Ruislip in May 2015, as he returned to his car following shopping in the store. He hit his head and sustained multiple injuries with long-term effects. The claim was that the Defendant breached its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 by failing to ensure the safety of the car park area.
This article considers how the NIL is used within the Coles guidelines.
If you would like to instruct Jim to help you with your case, you can do so by getting in touch with Parklane Plowden Chambers.