OGDEN, WE HAVE A PROBLEM… A REVIEW OF THE …：奥格登，我们的审查有问题…….ppt

Ward v Allies and Morrison Architects [2012] EWCA Civ 1287 First consideration of Ogden 6 by an appellate court. Appellant working for respondents as model maker on short term placement. Using unguarded circular saw when amputated left index finger and middle finger dislocated. Ward v Allies and Morrison Architects  Index finger was re-attached and made “considerable recovery”. Trial judge awarded lump sum Blamire damages for future LOE rather than an Ogden 6 award. Found appellant not disabled in terms of DDA 1995. Ward v Allies and Morrison Architects Argued on appeal – Should have found her disabled. Wrong to use Blamire approach. Appeal upheld first instance decision. Case failed on the evidence. Too many imponderables as to pre-accident career path, rates of pay and what she was capable of now to allow a multiplier/multiplicand approach. Ward v Allies and Morrison Architects Issue of whether disabled not the determining factor in deciding whether to apply Ogden 6. In any event CA agreed not disabled as no evidence her condition affected kind or amount of work she could do. Defender Strategies 1. Attack imponderables/ gaps in evidence and argue Ogden 6 approach inappropriate. (Palmer v Kitley) 2. Argue for reduction of pre-injury RF to reflect uninjured claimant’s above average risk of not reaching retirement age or of future periods of unemployment, e.g. poor medical history, poor employment history. (Peters) 3. Failure to mitigate. Claimant who has made no effort to get a job. (Hunter v MOD) 4. Attack level of disability. Argument claimant’s disability modest relative to peer group average evidently appeals to judges. (Conner v Bradman) 5. Disability already accounted for in multiplicand – no need to apply a post-injury RF. Nonsense but it worked in Clarke v Maltby. Defender Strategies (Ctd.) 6. Turn claimant’s good pre-accident employment history against him. Ogden 6 ignores pre-accident employment history. If claimant ha