England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT REGISTRY

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		3rd December 2004

Mrs Justice Dobbs:

BACKGROUND

1. The Claimant was born on 13^th September 1952. He is a married man with two grown up children. He has worked since the age of 16. With no qualifications he has progressed from being a miner to being (at the time of the incident in question) Regional Manager in the Wedge Group, a substantial operation involved in the galvanising business. He has been a very hard working and driven individual.
2. In 1988, he underwent an arthroscopy of his left knee. He was told at the time that he was starting with arthritis. He was prescribed various anti-inflammatory drugs. In 1997 he was seen by Mr Elsworth, a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, as he was having trouble with both his knees, the left knee in particular. A further arthroscopy was advised together with decompression of the patella tendon to alleviate the knocking in the knee joint.
3. On 17^th November 2000, the Claimant attended the Highfield Hospital for the operation to his knee. During the course of the operation, he fell from the operating table, sustaining a head injury. Following the accident, he went on to suffer from a number of symptoms, consistent with Post-Concussional Syndrome.

THE ISSUES

4. The Claimant has brought an action in negligence against the three defendants. Liability has been admitted by all three defendants. The remaining aspect of this case is the question of quantum of damages.

General damages:

5. There is a dispute between the parties as to the value of general damages. The Claimant puts the figure at between £20,000 and £30,000; the defendants say no more than £10,000.

Loss of earnings:

6. This is where the substantial dispute is centred. I set out below the issues to be decided as agreed by both parties.
7. Would the Claimant have resigned from his job at Wedge had it not been for the head injury? The burden of proof is on the Claimant to show on the balance of probabilities that he would not have resigned had it not been for the head injury.
8. If a causative link is shown between the head injury and the resignation, the next issue to be decided is, what is the level of past, present and future loss of earnings.
9. If the causative link between the head injury and the resignation is not made out, there remains an outstanding issue, namely has the Claimant proved on the balance of probabilities, that by virtue of the head injury and its repercussions, he is handicapped on the labour market?

Miscellaneous damages

10. A figure of £1,200 for future therapy and a figure of £4,500 inclusive of interest for past care have been agreed between the parties.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

11. Before considering the evidence in this case, it is useful to set out a short chronology of events.

17th November 2000	The accident.
January 2001	Claimant returns to work, at first part time and then full time.
25th January 2001	Claimants starts keeping diary on advice of solicitors.
Autumn 2001	Claimant and colleague show interest in new business opportunity.
18th March 2002	Claimant successfully undergoes annual appraisal
21st March 2002	"Resignation" conversation between Claimant and Mr Wooldridge
22nd March 2002	Meeting between Claimant and Mr Jermine. Claimant placed on gardening leave in lieu of working 3 months notice.
25th March 2002	Letter from Wedge Group accepting the Claimant's resignation .
12th April 2002	Claimant starts looking for job opportunities.
16th April 2002	Examination of the Claimant by Dr Priestley.
7th May 2002	Claimant meets Mike Kelly. Is offered opportunity to buy into Leeds Galvanising.
13th May 2002	Claimant agrees to join Leeds Galvanising.
17th May 2002	Mr Kelly and Claimant shake hands on Leeds Galvanising deal.
12th June 2002	Claim for unfair dismissal/discrimination brought by Claimant against Wedge in the Employment Tribunal. Compensation sought as opposed to re-instatement.
1st July 2002	Claimant joins Leeds Galvanising Company Ltd as Managing Director and 30% shareholder of business.
11th July 2002	Examination of the Claimant by Dr Price.
21st November 2002	Diary entries cease.
20-21st January 2003	The Employment Tribunal hearing.
4th February 2003	Decision of the Employment Tribunal
17th February 2003	Claimant brings High Court action against the three defendants.
1st May 2003	Second assessment by Dr Price.
2nd May 2003	Examination of the Claimant by Professor Oyebode.
28th May 2003	Second assessment of Dr Priestley.
10th June 2003	Examination of the Claimant by Dr Riddoch.
18th February 2004	Third assessment of Dr Priestley.
26th February 2004	Third assessment of Dr Price.

EVIDENCE

12. The evidence in the case can be divided into two areas: lay and expert evidence.
13. A number of witnesses were called on both sides in relation to both areas of evidence.
14. I summarise the effect of their evidence below.

Lay witnesses: Claimant:

15. In addition to the Claimant himself, the following witnesses gave evidence in support of his case: Mr Davies, Mr Kay, Mrs Childerley and Mrs Moore. The essence of the evidence from work colleagues was that there had been a noticeable change in the Claimant when he returned to work after the accident.
16. Mr Davies saw the Claimant only once or twice a week and thus was not in a position to assess the Claimants overall performance. He noticed however that on the Claimants return to work, he was more reticent than he used to be and that his style had changed. In cross-examination, he conceded that the Claimant was still getting the job done.
17. Mr Kay has known the Claimant for many years, describing him as a very bubbly and up front type of character, who would meet any challenge head on. The Claimant was his regional director. Mr Kay also noticed a change in the Claimants attitude following the accident, in that he was reserved in meetings and was not as motivated as he used to be. He described the Claimant as being a fiery character who used to work himself to death as he worked his way up through the ranks. He was very opinionated and would say what he thought, rightly or wrongly. Although Mr Kay spoke to him on the phone quite regularly, in evidence in chief he indicated that he did not in fact see much of the Claimant at work as they were based at different plants.
18. Mr Kay dealt with the circumstances of his interest in acquiring another business together with the Claimant. He took the view that in the autumn of 2001 with sufficient support – namely himself, the Claimant was capable of taking over a business. Mr Kay felt that the Claimant was the right person to work with and he would have worked with him had the price of the deal been right. As it transpired, the owners wanted too much money for it.
19. Mrs Moore worked at the Heywood factory as a senior administrator. The Claimant had an office at the Heywood plant. She noticed immediately following the accident that the Claimant was not his usual outgoing self. He had improved by the end of 2001, nevertheless, he was still different. He was not as outgoing and was a bit less forceful than before. He took more of a back seat. The work of the office was still being carried out, things were getting done and the business was going successfully. There were no problems with the division.
20. Mrs Childerley gave evidence of how well her husband had done in his working life; how ambitious and driven he was, always wanting to get to the top of the tree. She described how her husband had changed dramatically in the days following the accident. She went through the symptoms he suffered and how all this had adversely affected their lives initially. In cross-examination, she conceded that there had been a great improvement and that the Claimant was enjoying his work at Leeds Galvanising as he was not under the same pressures as at Wedge. This is confirmed by what the Claimant told Dr Price, when he said that he was happier being a large fish in a small pond, than being a large fish in a very large pond. According to Mrs Childerley, her husband's previous short fuse has disappeared making for fewer arguments at home. The difficulties had made their personal relationship stronger. Seeing them together in court during the hearing, there can be no doubt that they are a very close couple.
21. Mr Childerley gave evidence. He adopted his various statements. He went through the list of symptoms suffered by him back in 2001/early 2002 and updated the position. He indicated that he now suffered the occasional headache, sometimes had difficulty concentrating over extended periods and had lost his previous ambition and drive. He felt uncomfortable with figures and did little reading for pleasure now. If the accident had not happened, his ambition was to run his own business. Failing that, he wanted to get as far as he could in the Wedge Organisation, finally moving onto the main board of Wedge. In his view, before the accident, he had a good chance of getting further promotion including a seat on the board.
22. He described the problems he had experienced when he came back to work following the accident and drew attention to entries in his diaries, which he was told to keep by his solicitors. He conceded that he had been allowed to come back in his own time, take off time when he was not feeling well and generally allowed to take things at his own pace. It was his decision when he started full time work and how much work he took upon himself. He said he did not contribute during meetings like he used to and the senior management were aware of this.
23. His appraisal in March 2002 had gone relatively well and no disquiet was expressed by the management about his performance, nor had there been complaints from the staff about lack of performance. He felt however that he was being treated with a false kindness and that he was being marginalised.
24. He was asked in cross-examination about the various occasions when he had attempted to buy a business in the past. He indicated that he believed that his progress in the company had been affected negatively because of his attempt in the 1990's to buy Pillar Wedge. He dealt with the approach by the business in Rotherham involving Sean Kay in 2001. He said that there was a short meeting in a pub and nothing more. It did not progress as they wanted too much money.
25. Talking about the incident on 21^st March 2002 with Mr Woolridge, he indicated that prior to the accident he had always stood up to people and would not suffer fools gladly. He would stand his ground and stand up to confrontation and would not walk away.
26. As far as he was concerned when he walked away from Woolridge that night he had not resigned. When he said "I might as well give three months notice" it was just a figure of speech. He conceded that he used words which amounted to a resignation, but he said that his reaction had been a disproportionate one. In the old days he would have not backed down and run away, he would have argued his corner.
27. Regarding the conversation with Mr Jermine the following day – he indicated that the conversation as related by Mr Jermine simply did not take place. He made it clear at the meeting with Mr Jermine that he had not resigned. He did not respond to the letter of 25^th March from Wedge on advice of his solicitors. He had been asked by his solicitors if he wanted his job back and he said he did not think it was worth it as he would be looking over his shoulder all the time. It is to be noted that his application to the Employment Tribunal is for compensation, not for re-instatement or re-engagement with his old employer (Bundle 1 page 256) and indeed by the time of the claim, he had already agreed the deal with Leeds Galvanising.
28. He described his new job at Leeds Galvanising. He had indicated previously in one of his statements that he would regularly get job offers in the past and that because of the injury he had not felt able to take up what would be sizeable business commitments. When questioned about this, he conceded that the Leeds offer was the only one that had been available to him at that time. He took it on at a lower salary but hoping that it would increase. He accepted that he considered that the business had "loads of potential". His title was that of Managing Director, but his work consisted of more menial tasks such as driving a fork lift truck, booking in material and talking to customers. It is interesting to note however that in the diary, the Claimant refers to dealing with strategic planning, dealing with changes in the company, cash flow, sales, marketing and customer liaison, going to meetings, although he did indicate in the diary that he was not as comfortable in financial analysis and planning as he used to be. There is only one reference to working in the plant with the "lads" on a particularly busy day. In cross-examination, once shown his expenses claimed, he conceded that he was doing a fair amount of travelling in connections with sales and attempting to generate more business. He was trying to build the business up. He went through the comparison for figures for his previous job and the present one. He maintained that he would no longer be able to take on a business of his own or such tasks as he had previously carried out at Wedge.

Lay Witnesses: The defence:

29. The following witnesses were called on behalf of the Defendants: Mr Leighfield, Mr Woolridge and Mr Jermine, all senior management at Wedge.
30. Mr Leighfield is operational director of Wedge. He was the Claimant's line manager. He had known Mr Childerley from before the acquisition of Pillar Wedge in 1996, and had worked with him directly since that time. He described how it was clear to him that the Claimant was not entirely happy with his role in the company following the acquisition of Pillar Wedge by BE Wedge back in the 1990's. He noted that the Claimant had an independent streak, which did not sit well with his working in a large organisation. He would often fail to follow company policies and sometimes acted beyond his authority. He had to be carefully and closely managed.
31. With regard to the accident, Mr Leighfield indicated that the company was keen that the Claimant did not return to work too early. Should his workload be too great, it could be reduced. He was allowed time off work during the occasions when he did not feel well. He kept in regular touch with the Claimant to ascertain how he was coping. From the middle of 2001 it seemed to him that the Claimant was working normally and his performance had not deteriorated. Indeed, he was letting other people take responsibility, standing back and letting them do what they should be doing. In the past the Claimant would not let people do their own jobs. For example, instead of the sales managers, he himself would visit the customers, with the result that he did not spend time on things he should have done himself. There were no complaints from staff that any of them were covering and doing work for him from mid 2001.
32. Mr Leighfield became aware in the autumn of 2001 of the Claimant's and Mr Kay's interest in buying a rival business. This was raised with the Claimant and following discussion, the matter was laid to rest and both men continued their employment with Wedge.
33. In March 2002 Mr Leighfield carried out an appraisal with the Claimant, which was very satisfactory and pointed to an improvement in the Claimants work over the year.
34. He became aware of the Claimant's resignation on the evening of 21^st March 2002. At a later board meeting the following day, he was involved in the final acceptance of what seemed to the Board to be an unequivocal resignation by the Claimant. He was disappointed but not surprised when he heard about the Claimant's resignation. He expected the Claimant to contact him to discuss matters, but he did not.
35. As regards the Claimant's prospects of advancement had the accident not occurred, he indicated that in his view, Mr Childerley had reached the top of his operational capability. There had been question marks about his overall capability before the accident and that was the reason why he was not given a wider region to supervise. The changes in the Claimant's behaviour since the accident were in fact helpful to his position and work as he was more approachable and amenable. He appeared entirely capable in his work and during meetings contributed to in - depth discussions about all business aspects of the company.
36. Mr Woolridge is Chairman and Chief Executive of the Wedge group. He has known the Claimant for many years and worked with him since the acquisition of Pillar Wedge. Following the accident, he also encouraged the Claimant not to return to work too early. He said that initially the Claimant did show some symptoms such as hesitancy in responses, lack of confidence and he did not play as great a part in the budget meetings, but by the middle of 2001 he was working normally and carrying out his full range of responsibilities. Mr Woolridge's attention was drawn to a document at Bundle 2 Page 246 of the exhibits in relation to some managerial changes. He indicated that they were normal changes, commenting that the Claimant had always performed more of the sales and commercial functions than would normally be expected of a general manager, so the change they had made would accommodate that and give him more direct responsibility, whilst increasing the strength of his staff on the production side.
37. Mr Woolridge described the background leading up to events of 21^st March 2002. He conceded that he had not been as explicit as he could have been about his disapproval of passing on confidential information in an earlier meeting in the middle of 2001, this was because he was treading carefully and making allowances, since it was only a matter of months since the Claimant had returned to work.
38. On 21^st March 2002, he made no such allowances for the Claimant, given that in his view, things had returned to normal by the autumn of 2001 and that by the March 2002 budget meeting Mr Childerley played a normal part. When Mr Childerley told him of his intentions to pass on confidential material via an innocent third party to one of their customers, he had no hesitation in making his displeasure felt. According to him, Mr Childerley stood up after a pause, gave his resignation and then left the room. He was not expecting the Claimant to tender his resignation. He was "gob smacked" by it, but then the Claimant followed the decision through. He denied that it was an opportunity to get rid of an employee with a head injury, since if that had been the case, they would not have tried to ascertain where he had gone to, nor communicated with him the next day to see if it really was his intention to leave.
39. He confirmed what Mr Leighfield indicated about the Claimant's chances of promotion, particularly in respect of joining the board which he felt was an over-optimistic assessment by the Claimant of his prospects.
40. Mr Jermine was the last witness from the management. He was Director of Human Resources. He indicated that he had some dealings with the Claimant after his accident and that he had noticed problems with concentration early in 2001, but that during the course of that year his condition improved and he returned to normal performance. They had dealings about the proposed reorganisation of the region and the Claimant dealt with it fine. He confirmed what Mr Woolridge had said about Mr Childerley taking an active part in co-ordinating sales activity having strengthened the internal control of the works. Had Mr Childerley not resigned when he did, there was no reason for him not to be with the company still.
41. After the Claimant had checked out of the hotel on 21^st March, Mr Jermine was the one deputed to track him down to find out why he had left the hotel. He explained that he met the Claimant at the Heywood plant the next morning. The Claimant explained to him when asked what had happened, that he had thrown in his lot as he could not work with Mr Woolridge and one of them would have to leave. As Mr Woolridge would not be leaving, he, the Claimant would have to. Mr Jermine said when he left the Heywood plant, he was in no doubt that the Claimant had resigned and this was accepted by the board when they later discussed the matter. The position was formalised in the letter of 25^th March 2002.

Expert witnesses:

42. There were two expert witnesses called on behalf of the Claimant Dr Price (Neuro-surgeon) and Dr Priestley (Neuropsychologist) and two on behalf of the Defendants, Professor Oyebode (Psychiatrist) and Dr Riddoch (Neurologist). A number of reports were produced (see chronology above) and two joint statements.
43. The joint statements and evidence indicate the following:

i. All four experts agree that the Claimant sustained a head injury when he fell off the operating theatre table on 17th November 2000. Dr Price considered the head injury to be moderate, Dr Riddoch considered it to be mild for reasons which he explained in evidence. He noted that his view is supported by the similar finding of Professor Sagar.

ii. All four experts agree that the Claimant experienced disturbance of memory functioning, problems with attention and concentration, increased irritability, headaches and dizzy spells. These symptoms collectively, constitute a post-concussional syndrome, which is as a result of the fall.

iii. Dr Price contends that the Claimant has suffered significant brain damage and that the residual symptoms such as memory, concentration and behavioural changes are as a result of the damage. This approach is not supported by any of the other experts. Dr Riddoch, whilst accepting for sake of argument that there could have been minor brain damage suffered due to the minor head injury, indicates that this would not be the cause of the residual symptoms. He attributes them to the lingering effect of the depression. He relies on the extensive neuropsychological testing by Dr Priestley, which shows that the Claimant has suffered no deterioration as regards intellect, memory or executive functioning. Dr Priestley indicates that PCS begins as an organic event but then develops into a psychological state. It does not involve damage to the fabric of the brain and will not be identifiable on a scan.

iv. All four experts agree that the Claimant suffered depression and anxiety for a period of approximately two years after the accident. Dr Priestley and Professor Oyebode agree that the Claimant's symptoms of depression improved following his treatment with anti-depressant medication.

v. All four experts also agree that the Claimant has suffered some post-concussional problems beyond May 2003, in particular headaches, occasional memory lapses and anxiety, but they are not agreed as to the extent and cause of the problems. Dr Price is of the opinion that there will be no further resolution. Dr Priestley takes the view that although ostensibly much recovered, the Claimant will always be vulnerable to re-occurrence of some symptoms under stress. In Professor Oyebode's opinion, any residual symptoms are unconnected to the severity and extent of the head injury and suggest psychological factors at play. Dr Riddoch's view is that there is no reason why the Claimant should not make a full recovery within the next year.

44. As regards the Claimant's position regarding the labour market, Dr Price takes the view that he would be handicapped on the labour market with regard to a more responsible and demanding job such as at Wedge. When cross-examined, he conceded that the Claimant performed well in the witness box, an occasion of high stress, nevertheless he took the view that it was not the same as the stress of a very high powered job. Dr Priestley believes that the Claimant would be vulnerable in such stressful situations. Dr Riddoch and Professor Oyebode disagree, both noting in particular that the Claimant performed very well in the witness box under very stressful conditions.
45. With regard to the "resignation" incident, Dr Price considers this to be entirely due to the brain injury, which has left a behavioural change, a change of personality, causing the Claimant to have a disproportionate emotional reaction. He found such an impetuous and ill thought out reaction to be "out of character". Dr Priestley, whilst he disagrees that this reaction is due to organic brain damage, does take the view that this was a "flammable reaction" due to the sequelae of the head injury. Professor Oyebode disagrees. His opinion is that the resignation incident was not impulsive nor as a result of overwhelming anxiety and he gives his reasons for this finding, being based on lack of evidence of previous such reactions which one would have expected to see, his observations of the Claimant in the witness box and the other evidence he has seen and read to form an overall picture. Dr Riddoch takes the view that essentially this is a matter for a psychiatrist/psychologist, although when asked, he did indicate that in his opinion, if there had been a small amount of brain damage, it would not be capable of producing a flammable reaction.

THE ISSUES – FINDINGS

46. I return to the issues which have to be decided and my findings of fact in relation to those issues.
47. With relation to general damages, my assessment is that the injury falls into the category of "moderate" psychiatric damage. Accordingly I make an award of £11,000. This award is higher than the top bracket in this category, but I take the view that figures set out in the Guidelines are just that – a guide. The reason for taking the figure outside the upper bracket is that the symptoms persisted for a longer time than usual, the majority extending over a period of two years. Given the results of the tests, that the prognosis is generally good and that the Claimant presents well, and ironically, any apparent change in behaviour has been for the better, it seems to me that it is not appropriate to put the award in the "moderately severe" bracket, albeit the figure awarded falls within those parameters.

Would the Claimant have resigned from his job at Wedge had it not been for the head injury?

48. Such a question is by its very nature somewhat speculative, but applying the necessary standard of proof, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a causative link between the brain injury and the resignation incident.
49. The reasons for reaching this view are as follows:-

i. Dr Price and Dr Priestley, for different reasons take the view that the injury was the cause of Mr Childerley's reaction. What is noticeable about their evidence is that they both rely very heavily indeed on the account tendered by the Claimant and to some extent the evidence of the work colleagues who saw him from time to time, almost to the exclusion of the evidence of senior management who had a vested interest in observing his progress. What is also noteworthy is that both experts took the view that the behaviour of Mr Childerley was out of character, yet they both failed to give much if any weight to the clear signals in the evidence of Mr Leighfield, Mr Woolridge and even Mr Kay, of the kind of impetuous character the Claimant had been in the past, evidence which would go toward explaining his behaviour in March 2002. Neither Dr Price nor Dr Priestley can really deal with what was perhaps the most compelling evidence of all, that of the Claimants performance in the witness box. Having been there for the best part of the day in a very stressful situation, namely giving evidence in public, he concentrated fully, appeared to be in complete control and dealt with difficult cross-examination with apparent ease, standing his ground and refusing to accept propositions put to him where he disagreed, even sometimes in the face of documentary evidence supporting those propositions. Having had the opportunity to observe him as I have, it is clear that Mr Childerley has followed the proceedings most carefully and has demonstrated no real problems with concentration or attention.

ii. In contrast to Drs Price and Priestley, Professor Oyebode has taken a more rounded approach. He has considered not only the Claimant's perceptions but also the evidence he had seen and read. In particular he has observed the Claimant giving evidence, which, according to him gave a good insight into how the Claimant would perform both in an executive position and in stressful situations. In his view, there was no need to bring psychopathology or psychiatry into the incident. He commented that whilst you had to treat a person's perceptions with respect, it did not mean that it was an objective account of reality. You cannot look at behaviour in a microscopic way; you have to look at all the evidence to make an assessment. There was no evidence of any previous similar responses to show that the Claimant was prone to abnormal experiences in stress, which one would expect to find if he were in that vulnerable position. I find this to be a compelling and commonsense approach to the issue.

iii. Following on from that issue, it is worth noting that in the diaries at this time, and the document at Bundle 2 page 246, the Claimant was clearly back in harness, attending meetings, being involved in the re-organisation of his division and actively involved in the commercial aspect of the business, and although there are occasions when he suffered from tiredness or headaches, there is no evidence at all of any "abnormal reactions" to the stress he was working under. On his own assessment of himself he was conducting meetings etc "ok".

iv. I reject the analysis by Dr Price and Dr Priestley of the "flight" syndrome and the irrationality of what the Claimant is supposed to have done. This fails to take into account the following factual background:

a. The evidence of how the Claimant used to behave (referred to above);

b. The Claimant indicated that he was always receiving job offers from people in that line of business but had turned them down as they did not meet his expectations;

c. He apparently enjoyed a good reputation in the galvanising business.

d. He had clearly been in the position of being able to raise money should a reasonable business opportunity present itself;

e. If this was such an emotional reaction, it is unlikely that the Claimant would have mentioned giving three months notice. He would have said he was going there and then;

f. If the Claimant was really backing down and fleeing – he would have done precisely that – he would not have stopped to pack, checked out of the hotel and then gone to work the next day – if fleeing, feeling to be under threat, it seems to me that he would not have been able to face coming back to work.

v. I do not have to make a finding about whether the Claimant is lying about the incident as has been suggested by counsel for the defendants, as the real issue is whether the head injury was the cause of the incident. I indicate for sake of clarity that I do not find that the Claimant has deliberately lied, but I do take the view that his memory and perception of events is not as straightforward as he indicated. He says that he did not resign, but was sacked due to his ongoing problems. If that were the case, the senior management would not have taken the steps that night to find out where he was, nor have contacted him for a meeting the next day, nor would they have been so understanding as they clearly were (even in the diary accounts) over the 15 months following his accident. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that the Claimant was upset by the stern words of Mr Woolridge and the "old" Mr Childerley reacted. He spoke his mind and stormed off, fed up at the way he had been treated. Even on his own version in the diary, he complains the next day about the way he was spoken to, no doubt expecting some kind of apology. It is only when he finally realises that the senior management are taking him at his word, does he indicate that it was just a figure of speech. By then it was too late. He realised the enormity of what had happened, and felt resentment for what he saw as the company "dumping" him after so many years of service.

vi. In relation to the evidence of the Claimant, it is interesting to note that neither Dr Price or Dr Priestley deal with this incident in any substantial way until their third examination; the Claimant having never mentioned to them the detailed circumstances of his departure and neither consultant going into any detail themselves as the circumstances of his leaving the company. This in my view undermines their evaluation of the situation.

50. Given that I find that the causative link between the resignation and the head injury is not made out, there remains an outstanding issue.

Has the Claimant proved on the balance of probabilities, that by virtue of the head injury and its repercussions, he is handicapped on the labour market?

51. I find that the Claimant is not handicapped on the labour market for the following reasons:

i. I prefer the evidence of Dr Riddoch and Professor Oyebode on the subject.

ii. Dr Priestley's findings on examination and the fact that he was unable to give a categorical answer to the question also undermine such a conclusion.

iii. Even Dr Price, who does think he would be handicapped in a high flying job, was forced to concede that the Claimant had performed well in the witness box under great stress.

iv. My own observations of the Claimant in the witness box.

v. The fact that the Claimant is a 30% shareholder in a company with "loads" of potential and unlikely to be made redundant or looking for another job.

vi. The Claimant's reputation in the industry.

52. It follows from the above, that no award is made under the heading of disadvantage in the labour market.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

53. My findings can be summarised as follows:

General damages: £11,000

Past Care: £4,500 (inclusive of interest)

Future Therapy: £1,200