clr/1982/1982_1_789.pdf

(1982)at £624.- by 15, the multiplier chosen to establish future losses and (b) £3,000.- general damages. Upon appeal by theemployers which κ·β?solely directedagainst the multiplier chosenand the quantum of general damages: Held,

(1)thatno hard andfast rules can beestablished giving 5 a uniform answer to the choice of a multiplier in every case and as it emerges from the study of the English and Cyprus Case Law there is considerableflexibilityin the choice of the multiplier, the choice resting in the first place with the trial Court; that the prevalent trend reflecting judicial approach 10 is that a multiplier in the region of 15 may be adopted in cases where the plaintiff is in his 20's or younger and that generally a smaller multiplier is warranted in the case of elder persons; that had this Court been concerned at fiist instance to assess future loss likely to be suffered by the respondent it might opt 15 for a smaller multiplier in view of the none too settled work habits of the respondent but that is far from saying there is any room for interfering with the award of the trial Court; that in the absence of a misdirection, and there is none here, this Court would only be entitled to interfere with an award 20 of damages if it is either inordinately high or inordinately low; that the award in the present case for future loss is neither too high nor too low; and that, therefore, this Court will refrain from in any way interfering with the conclusions of the trial Court; that the trial Court was right in making a substantial 25 award of general damages rightly based so far as it may be gathered onthevalue of money at the date of hearing; thatthe respondent suffered an awful lot on accountof his injuries and, worse still, found himself as a result crippled while a young man something that is bound to have grave repercussions on 30 his capacity for the enjoyment of life as well as the lingering sense of disability; that as Hadjianastassiou, J. pointed out in thecourse of argument thereis a steady tendencyto liberalize awards for damages by awarding greater amounts compared to what was regarded as the norm in days past; that a higher 35 premium is placed on human pain andtheagonies of disability; that the amount of £3,000 was reasonable; accordingly the appeal must fail. Appeal dismissed. Cases referred to: Joyce v. Yeomans [1891] 2 All E.R. 21 (C.A.); 790 40 1 C.L.H. 5 10 15 Paraskevaides (Overseas) Ltd.v. Chrlstofis C.R. Taylor (Wholesale)Limited v. Hepworths[1977] 2 All E.R. 784; Fletcher v. Autocar Transporters Ltd. [1968] 1 All E.R. 726; Constantinou v. Salachouris

(1969)1 C.L.R. 416; Service Europe Atlantique v. Stockholmes [1978]2All E.R. 764; Taylorv. O'Connor[1971] 1 All E.R. 365 <H.L.); Gavin v. WilmotBreeden Ltd. [1973] 3 All E.R. 935 (C.A.); Poullouv. Constantinou

(1973)1 C.L.R. 177; Djiellasv. TheShip"Natalena H" andOthers, Admiralty Action 14/80 (reported in this part at p. 807 post); Walkerv. John McLean and Sons Ltd. [1979] 2 All E.R. 965 (C.A.); Dotts v. Dotts [1978] 2 All E.R. 531; Antoniou v. Kyriacou

(1978)1 C.L.R. 77; Gregoriou v. FellaandAnother

(1980)2 J.S.C. 384; Nicolaides v. Nikou

(1981)1 C.L.R. 225; Xenophontos and Anotherv. Anastassiou

(1981)1 C.L.R. 521. Appeal. Appeal by defendants against the judgment of the District 20 Court of Nicosia (Stylianides, P.D.C. and Fr. Nicolaides, D.J.) dated the 20th June, 1981 (Action No. 934/78) whereby they were adjudged to pay to plaintiff the sum of £9,503.- by way of special and general damages for injuries sustained by him while working with the defendants in Libya. 25 Ch. Ierides with Chr. Clerides, for the appellants. Ant. LemtSy for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. HADJIANASTASSIOU J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Pikis. 30 PIKIS J.: Respondent, a carpenter by training and occupation, was severely injured while working with appellants in Libya. He was then 23 years old. His injuries necessitated immediate hospitalization; three days later he was flown over to Cyprus where he was treated by Dr. Ioannou, an orthopaedic 35 surgeon of Nicosia. Also he was seen and examined by Dr. Christodoulakis, another orthopaedic surgeon, on behalf of his employers. As a result of the accident respondent suffered crushing inju791 Pikis J. Paraskevaides (Overseas) Ltd. v. Chrlslofis

(1982)ries on the left hand. His injuries necessitated amputation of the distant phalanxes of the thumb and index finger of the left hand. The amputation operation was performed in Libya. The middle finger of the left hand was also injured. There was a crushing comminuted compound fracture of the middle 5 phalanx of the, finger. Recovery was not uneventful and treatment was painful. On his arrival in Cyprus, the middle finger was infected, emitting puss, while the thumb stump was painful at the edges and the index stump producing pain on touch or palpitation. He remained hospitalized at the clinic of Dr. 10 loannou from 6th December, 1977, to 23rd December, 1977. His condition necessitated readmittance on 9th January, 1978, accompanied by a five days stay in the clinic of Dr. loannou. The injuries left the respondent with grave incapacitation, a condition confirmed by both doctors—Dr. loannou and Dr. Christodoulakis. This incapacitation had grave repercussions on the working capacity of the respondent in viewof the nature of his work. In a joint medical report eventually, submitted before thetrialCourt,thetwodoctorsconcurred intheir findings but differed to a degree as to the implications of the injuries on the working capacity of the respondent. In the opinion of Dr. loannou, the condition of the respondent was such as to prevent him from assuming any work requiring the use of both hands. In effect, it barred him from taking up manual work. Dr. Christodoulakis, on the other hand, was not as pessimistic as that his opinion being that which the capacity of respondent for manual work had been seriously impaired, it wasnot suchastopreventhimfrom takingupmanualemployment, subject always to the qualification that his performance would be adversely affected. Liability was settled at the trial, appellants admitting two thirds liability for the accident. The task of the Court was, therefore, limited to the assessment of damages. In a detailed judgment the Full District Court of Nicosia adverted to the implications of the injuries of the respondent, their 35 after-effects and the loss and damage produced thereby. Damages were assessed at £15,035.- subject to a reduction on account of the contribution of the respondent, comprising, inter alia, (

1. a)£9,360.- future losses of earnings arrived at by multiplying annual loss at the date of hearing, estimated at 40 792 15 20 25 30 1 C.L.R. Paraskevaides (Overseas) Ltd. v. Christofis Pikis J, £624.- by 15, the multiplier chosen to establish future losses and (
2. b)£3,000- general damages. We need not concern ourselves with other items of special damages for the present appeal is solely directed towards challenging the multiplier 5 chosen and the quantum of general damages. The amount of annual losses is not in dispute so it need not be touched upon in this appeal. Principles of damage—The multiplier: \*The multiplier is the figure of arithmetic chosen to establish 10 future losses on the basis of losses of earnings quantifiable at the date of trial. In terms of legal theory it is an instrument for the assessment of damages, the part designed to establish future losses. It must be stressed, however, that a multiplier is nothing other than a practical tool for the assessment of 15 future losses. The need for its adoption'does not stem from any rule of law. Nor is its employment the only means to discern future losses to the injured party. The Court may adopt any reasonable means at its disposal for the accomplishment of its duty that requires the restoration of the injured party 20 to the position he was expected to enjoy but for his injuries. (See Joyce v. Yeomans [1981] 2 All E.R. 21 (C.A.) ). Subject always to the need to ensure that the damage awarded is reasonable as between the parties. (See C.R. Taylor (Wholesale) Limited v. Hepworths [1977] 2 All E.R. 784). 25 The object of an award of damages is to dojustice to the loss and damage of the injured party without imposing an inordinate burden upon the tort-feasor. (See Fletcher v. Autocar Transporters Ltd. [1968] 1 All E.R. 726; Constantinou v. Salahouris

(1969)1 C.L.R. 416). In other wordsthe award must be socially 30 acceptable. Consequently, social ethos at the material time is invariably a consideration relevant to our task particularly with regard to non-pecuniary loss. Pecuniary loss being more amenable to mathematical calculation isless dependent on social norms. The object of the exercise is to arrive at a figure,at 35 the end of the process, that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The assessment of future loss involves an element of guesswork; foretelling the future entails pondering the uncertain. 793 Pikis J. Paraskevaides (Overseas) Ltd. v. Christofis (1982 Future uncertainty tends to be augmented in modern society on account of the rapidly changing social and technological conditions. Themultiplierisintendedtoreduce,sofar asreasonandcommon sense make it possible, the element of uncertainty in the 5 process and provide an objective basis for the assessment of damage while inducing, at the same time, an element of uniformity in the awards. The multiplier is chosen primarily, but not exclusively, by reference to the age and state of health of the injured party and to alesserextent hisemployment pros- 10 pects. His age is the first denominator. The nature of his work and the hazards associated with it though secondary constitute nonetheless important indicators on future loss. Ultimately a figure must be chosen best designed to yield the present value of future loss. Therefore, the figure chosen 15 by reference to the factors above listed must be scaled down sufficiently to reflect the present value of future loss. Justice and fairness should guide the Court throughout the process of assessment of damage. (See dicta of Geoffrey Lane, L.J. in ServiceEurope Atlantique v. Stockholmes[1978] 2 All E.R. 20 764). If the cases establish any principle it is this: No hard and fast rules can be established giving a uniform answer to the choice of themultiplier ineverycase. (See Taylor v. O'Connor [1971] 1 All E.R. 365 (H.L.); Gavinv. Wilmot BreedenLtd. 25 [1973] 3 All E.R. 935 (C.A.); Poullouv. Constantinou

(1973)1 C.L.R. 177). Recently I had occasion to review the principles pertaining to an award of damages in Djiellas v. TheShip "NATALENA H" andOthers, Admiralty Action No.14/80,judgment delivered 30 on 6th November, 1982, not yet reported.* The starting point in the process of assessment of future loss is the ascertainment of the yearlyfinanciallossarisingfrom the injuries calculated as at the date of trial. (See Walker v.John McLean andSonsLtd. [1979]2 All E.R. 965 (C.A.). Likewise 35 the multiplier must be fixed from the perspective of the date of hearing. (See Dotts v. Dotts [1978] 2 All E.R. 531). The respondent was aged 27 at the date judgment was given. * Now report at p. 807 post. 794 1 C.L.R. Paraskevaides (Overseas) Ltd; v. Christofis Pikis J- There is considerableflexibilityas it emergesfrom the study of the English and Cyprus Case Lawin thechoice of themultir plier, the choice resting in the first place with the trial Court; Nevertheless, we were invited by learnedcounselfor theappelr 5 lant to hold that the multiplier in this case was wrongly fixed at 15. In his submission it ought to have been not higher than 12. In support of his submission he cited two decided cases those of Antoniouv. Kyriacou

(1978)1C.L.R. 77 and Gregoriou v. Fella &Another

(1980)2 J.S.C. 384, a decision of 10 the District Court of Larnaca delivered by myself. He argued that the above cases establish that for injured parties in their 20's themultiplier ought not to be higher than 12. We cannot sustain thissubmission. Far from it a study of the abovecases reveals that the choice of'the multiplier turns, as in everycase, 15 on the peculiar circumstances of the case. If the submission of counsel was well founded the cases cited by Mr. Lemis on behalf of the respondents would come in conflict with the principle allegedly established by the aforementioned cases. (See Nicolaides Ltd. v. Nikou

(1981)1 C.L.R. 225; Xenophontos 20 andAnother v. Anastassiou

(1981)1 C.L.R. 521and the decided casescited in Kemp and Kemp,4th ed., vol. 2at p. 611et seq; A principle of law, depicted from decided cases, is one of general application, applicable to broadly similar situations. No precedent is established in the sense of stare decisis from 25 the results of the application of a principle of law to the facts of individual cases. The only principle *of law relevant to an award of damages is that damage should on thewhole befair and reasonable. Where a multiplier is chosen to assess future lossthefiguremust be chosen by reference to the criteria listed 30 earlier in thisjudgment. The prevalent trend reflectingjudicial approach isthat amultiplier in theregion of 15 maybeadopted in cases where the plaintiff is in his 20's or younger and that generally a smaller multiplier is warranted in the case of elder persons. Had we been concerned at first instance to assess 35 future losslikelyto be suffered by the respondent wemight opt for a smaller multiplier in view of the none too settled work habits of the respondent; but that is far from saying there is any room for interfering with the award of the trial Court. The principles on which the Supreme Court may interfere with 40 the assessment of damage by the trial Court are well settled to the point of not warranting a restatement. In the absence 795 Pikis J. Paraskevaides (Overseas) Ltd. v. Christofis

(1982)of a misdirection, and there is none here, we would only be entitled to interfere with an award of damages if it is either inordinately high orinordinatelylow. Theaward inthepresent case for future loss isneither too high nor too low. Therefore, weshall refrain from in any wayinterfering withtheconclusions 5 of the trial Court. General Damages The trial Court was in ourjudgment right in making a substantial award of general damages rightly based so far as we may gather on the value of moneyat the date of hearing. The 10 respondent suffered an awful lot on account of his injuries and, worsestill,found himself asaresult crippled whilea youngman something that is bound to have grave repercussions on his capacity for the enjoyment oflife as well as the lingering sense of disability. As Hadjianastassiou, J. pointed out inthe course 15 of argument there is a steady tendency to liberalize awards for damages by awarding greater amounts compared to what wasregarded asthenorm indayspast;that ispreciselythecase. A higher premium is placed on human pain and the agonies of disability. Far from agreeingwith counsel for the appellant, 20 who it must be said took up every point that could be taken on behalf of the appellant, weare inclined to the view that the amount of £3,000wasreasonable, sothis ground of appeal fails as well. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs. 25 Appealdismissed with costs. 796