Scottish Court of Session Decisions

OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2010] CSOH 165
PD950/09	OPINION OF M G THOMSON, Q.C. (sitting as a Temporary Judge) in the cause JAMES MACDONALD Pursuer; against WOOD GROUP ENGINEERING (NORTH SEA) LIMITED Defenders: ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________________

Pursuer: Beynon; Lefevre Litigation

Defenders: Galbraith; Paull & Williamsons

10 December 2010

Introduction
[1] In this action the pursuer seeks damages for injuries which he sustained in the course of his employment with the defenders while working aboard the Brent Bravo Oil Production Platform in the Scottish sector of the North Sea. His case against the defenders is based on alleged breach of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and fault at common law. The defenders deny liability and contend that in any event the pursuer was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent that he was solely responsible for the loss which he suffered.

The established facts
[2] On 2 April 2007 the pursuer was employed by the defenders. He was working as a deck crew rigger on the Brent Bravo Oil Production Platform which was then located within the Brent Oilfield within the Scottish sector of the North Sea. The defenders were contracted to provide specialist engineering, maintenance and supply services to Shell Exploration and Production UK, the operators of the platform. At that time the pursuer was an experienced deck crew rigger. He had been employed in that capacity on that rig since at least the mid-1990s and he had been working regularly offshore since about 1979. He had been on a number of courses associated with his work including Offshore Safety Representatives Refresher in February 2000, Rigging and Lifting in April 2000, Planning of Lifting Operations in October 2003 and Risk Assessment Coaches' Course in June 2006. He had a particular interest in safety and acted as a safety representative on a voluntary basis.

[3] On the day in question, the pursuer was working in a small team engaged in transferring material and equipment from a supply vessel onto the platform. The supply vessel had arrived the previous night and there were approximately 30 containers to be transferred from the ship to the platform and 15 to be transferred back to the ship.

[4] The transfer of containers was carried out by means of a crane, which lifted individual containers from the deck of the ship to the pipe deck of the platform. The pipe deck was a large flat deck which had previously been used for the storage of lengths of pipe. Metal beams ran east to west across the pipe deck parallel to each other. The distance between these beams was approximately 10 feet. Each beam stood about 12 inches above the surface of the deck and was capped by a wooden bearer. The lengths of pipe had previously rested on these wooden bearers at right angles to the beams beneath.

[5] By April 2007 the pipe deck was being used for the storage of containers and other items of equipment housed in metal frames, whose overall dimensions were similar to those of a container. The containers varied in size and weight. Some containers would be accommodated lengthwise between the parallel beams, while others rested on top of the beams and at right angles to them.

[6] At about 6.30am on the day in question the pursuer attended a meeting in the office of Mr Kenneth Rennie, the services supervisor employed by the defenders. The purpose of the meeting was to carry out a generic risk assessment of the intended transfer of the containers between the ship and the platform. Mr Rennie was in the habit of walking over the pipe deck every morning and at night and would have done so before that meeting. The pipe deck tended to be a fairly congested area and one of his concerns was to ensure that there were safe routes across the pipe deck between the numerous containers which were stored there. Because space there was at a premium, the containers were positioned close to each other. A record of that meeting would have been kept on a card known as an "INTEGRA" card, but that was no longer available.

[7] After that meeting the work of transferring containers to the pipe deck began. Each container weighed between 11/2 and 8 tonnes. A container was attached to the crane by means of a bridle attached to the top four corners of the container. This mechanism permitted a container to rotate as it hung suspended from the crane, although its movement could otherwise be controlled by the crane.

[8] At about 9.30am the pursuer was working with a fellow employee, Billy Hunter. The latter was acting as banksman while the pursuer acted as load handler. Both the pursuer and Billy Hunter had VHF radios. Billy Hunter was able to communicate by radio with the operator of the crane and to give him instructions as to the precise movement of the container being lifted. The pursuer was able to contact Billy Hunter by radio, but only Billy Hunter communicated with the crane operator.

[9] At that time the pursuer and Billy Hunter were assisting the crane operator to land a particular container on the pipe deck. The container measured approximately 8 feet in width and 10 feet in length. The container was being lowered onto the pipe deck between two of the parallel beams. At that point there was a length of pipe measuring approximately 45 feet long and 10 inches in diameter resting against the northern side of the southerly beam. The effect of the presence of the beam was to reduce the surface area of the pipe deck on which the container could safely be landed to approximately 9 feet. Immediately to the west of the position where the container was to be landed was a large piece of equipment contained in a metal frame. Immediately to the south of the position where the container was to be landed was a clear space where the pursuer was able to stand. He was positioned at the westerly end of the container on its south side. From that position he was able to reach across the beam and the pipe and with his arms outstretched to control the rotation movement of the container as it was lowered by the crane. The operator of the crane was unable to see where the container was being landed and depended on guidance from his banksman, Billy Hunter. The latter was standing to the east of the container and was giving his directions from that point.

[10] As the pursuer attempted to push the western end of the container away from him, so that it could be landed in the space between the beam and the pipe, the tip of the middle finger of his left hand became trapped between the southwest corner of the container and the southeast vertical member of the frame of the load immediately to the west. The pursuer pushed the southwest corner of the container away from him because he did not wish part of the container to come to rest on the pipe.

[11] The presence of the length of pipe on the pipe deck at the time of the accident was known to Mr Rennie. The length of pipe required to be kept on the platform. It had been kept on the pipe deck and prior to the accident it had been moved about from one location on the deck to another as required. It could be moved comparatively easily by means of the crane. The pursuer, along with other employees, had complained to Mr Rennie about the presence of the pipe on the pipe deck. They thought that it should have been removed from the platform, but that had not been possible. Mr Rennie had not previously regarded the pipe as a hazard with regard to the loading and unloading of containers. His only concern about the presence of the pipe had been that it might impede a safe walkway across the pipe deck. After the accident the pursuer was taken to the sickbay on the platform where he waited for about two hours before being transferred by helicopter to Shetland and from there to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.

[12] While the pursuer was in the sickbay on the platform, he was in a state of shock. He had recently suffered the traumatic amputation of the tip of his left middle finger. He was given entonox as required and a painkilling injection. While the pursuer was in the sickbay, he was visited by Mr Rennie, who required to complete an incident report and a record of any subsequent action required. That afternoon Mr Rennie in his incident report recorded inter alia:

"A very experienced deck operator/load handler admitted having a lapse of concentration which resulted in him injuring a finger on his left hand."

Mr Rennie's principal purpose in asking the pursuer about the accident while he was in the sickbay was to discover if any urgent action was required to address any risk exposed by the accident.

Merits
[13] Regulation 2(1) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 provides:

"'manual handling operations' means any transporting or supporting of a load (including the lifting, putting down, pushing, pulling, carrying or moving thereof) by hand or by bodily force."

After proof it was accepted by the defenders that the operation being performed by the pursuer at the time of the accident constituted a manual handling operation within the meaning of the 1992 Regulations.

Regulation 4(1) of the 1992 Regulations provides inter alia:

"Each employer shall -

(a) so far as is reasonably practicable, avoid the need for his employees to undertake any manual handling operations at work which involve a risk of their being injured; or

(b) where it is not reasonably practicable to avoid the need for his employees to undertake any manual handling operations at work which involve a risk of their being injured -

(i) make a suitable and sufficient assessment of all such manual handling operations to be undertaken by them, having regard to the factors which are specified in column 1 of Schedule 1 of these Regulations and considering the questions which are specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that Schedule,

(ii) take appropriate steps to reduce the risk of injury to those employees arising out of their undertaking any such manual handling operations to the lowest level reasonably practicable, and ...".

[14] Counsel for the pursuer submitted that there had been a breach of both Regulation 4(1)(b)(i) and 4(1)(b)(ii). With regard to the duty to assess, it was submitted either that no such assessment had been carried out or that it could not be proved that it had been carried out. In any event, if there had been an assessment, it was not a suitable and sufficient assessment because Mr Rennie had failed to appreciate the significance of the presence of the pipe on the pipe deck. The presence of the pipe was clearly a potential source of danger, not least because it would constitute a tripping hazard and there was no doubt that it would have been reasonably practicable to have moved it to a part of the pipe deck where the loading and unloading of containers was not taking place.

[15] For the defenders it was submitted that the requirements of both branches of Regulation (4)(1)(b) had been met and in particular that the risks had been reduced to the lowest level reasonably practicable. It was further submitted that these two branches of the Regulation should not be considered in isolation and that the important point was whether the defenders had reduced the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable. Reference was made to the Opinions of Lord Eassie in Logan v Strathclyde Fire Board (12 January 1999, unreported) and Lord Macfadyen in McBeath v Halliday (2000 Rep LR 38).

[16] In Logan Lord Eassie stated in relation to an alleged breach of Regulation 4(1)(b)(i):

"While counsel for the pursuer founded on this breach as also giving rise to liability, I am not satisfied that a breach of the duty to make an assessment in itself gives rise to liability and damages. One can understand the legislative intention that employers should endeavour to formalise their approach to employees' safety by carrying out assessments. A failure to carry out that statutory obligation may be of evidential significance in deciding whether the employer has fulfilled the substantive duties in relation to working systems imposed by, for example, sub-paragraph (ii) of the Regulations [Reduction of Risk]. However, if an employer shows that he has in fact done all that could be required of him by reduction of risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable it seems to me to be immaterial that he may have achieved that result without having gone through the formal stage of carrying out an assessment. It appears to me that generally it is the failure to fulfil the substantive duty of taking proper precautions to reduce the risk of injury which will give rise to liability rather than the procedural obligation to carry out an assessment."

Lord Macfadyen made a similar point in McBeath (page 38, para 10-02):

"Without in any way minimising the importance in the over-all scheme of the Regulations (and of the Manual Handling Directive 90/269) of the obligation to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the operation, it seems to me to be unlikely that liability will be established on the mere ground of the employer's failure to make an assessment, without examination of whether that failure has led to a failure of the sort contemplated in regulation 4(1)(b)(ii). For the purpose of the present case at least, it is in my view sufficient to ask whether the defenders took appropriate steps to reduce the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable."

[17] Evidence on this topic was given by Mr Ian Wallace, a safety expert, for the pursuer and by Mr Rennie, for the defenders. Mr Wallace had impressive experience in relation to all aspects of safety on offshore installations. In particular, he had been safety services manager for the northern operations of Conoco (UK) Limited from 1986 to 1990, he had been an expert witness on evacuation and escape at the Piper Alpha Inquiry and from 1995 to the present he had been proprietor of a consultancy providing safety and environmental management and occupational health and safety advisory services to a number of offshore installation operators. He was, however, open to the criticism that he lacked recent (over the last 10 years) first hand experience of working on offshore installations, including lifting operations on such installations. Mr Rennie, in his position as the defenders' services supervisor on the platform in question for more than 20 years, had no shortage of first hand experience of the lifting operation which gave rise to the pursuer's injury, but his evidence was open to the criticism that to a considerable extent he was being blamed for the accident.

[18] In my opinion there was a breach by the defenders of Regulation 4(1)(b)(ii) of the 1992 Regulations. There is no doubt that the crane operator, directed by Mr Hunter as his banksman, was capable of moving and lowering the container with a considerable degree of precision backwards and forwards, from side to side and up and down, but the operator was powerless to control the tendency of the container to rotate while suspended from the crane. That was why manual handling by the pursuer was necessary. The task involved lowering the container to the deck between two beams. Manual handling by the pursuer was required to keep the long sides of the container approximately parallel to the beams on either side so that it could be landed between them. The presence of the pipe reduced the area between the beams on which such a safe landing could take place. As the space between the beams became more narrow by reason of the presence of the pipe, the need for manual handling by the pursuer increased in order to land the container on the available flat space of the deck. I consider therefore that the presence of the pipe increased the need for manual handling by the pursuer and consequently increased the risk of injury to him in the course of such handling. I accept the pursuer's evidence that when the accident occurred he was pushing the container away from himself. As the tip of the middle finger on his left hand was trapped at the very end of the container, which was about 10 feet long, he must have been attempting, at least to some degree, to rotate the container. I consider therefore that the presence of the pipe materially contributed to the need for the pursuer to manually handle the container and to the risk of the injury which he sustained. If that risk had been identified by the defenders, it could easily have been obviated by moving the pipe to another part of the pipe deck.

[19] With regard to the assessments required under Regulation 4(1)(b)(i) I agree with the point made by Lord Eassie and Lord Macfadyen. In the present case, however, I am satisfied that the early morning meeting in Mr Rennie's office, together with his walk around the pipe deck, constituted an assessment of the manual handling operations which were to be carried out by the pursuer in the course of the day, but although Mr Rennie was aware of the presence of the pipe, he failed, in my opinion, properly to identify it as a hazard to those operations.

[20] The pursuer also contends that the accident and the pursuer's loss were caused by the defenders' failure of duty at common law to provide him with a reasonably safe place of work and system of work. In my opinion the defenders were in breach of their duty to provide a reasonably safe place of work for the pursuer. The pipe deck was a congested place of work. Containers and steel frames enclosing pieces of equipment required to be stored as close to each other as possible. In such circumstances, manual handling of a container gave rise to a foreseeable risk of injury, albeit a comparatively small one. That risk was increased by the presence of the pipe for the reasons already considered in relation to the statutory case. In view of the risk of injury, it would have been comparatively easy to have moved the pipe in order to increase the landing area for the container and thereby to have reduced the need for manual handling and consequently the risk of injury to the pursuer. I do not, however, consider that the defenders were in breach of their common law duty in respect of the system of work. There was no evidence that the system of lifting involving the crane operator, the banksman and the pursuer was in any way defective, far less that it contributed to the pursuer's accident. There was a suggestion at one point in the evidence that the pursuer required at all times to be in Mr Hunter's line of sight, but in the absence of evidence from Mr Hunter it was not established that at any time Mr Hunter was unable to see what the pursuer was doing, or, if he was unable to see him at any stage, that that contributed to the pursuer's injury.

[21] Counsel for the defenders submitted that even if the defenders had been in breach of any duty incumbent upon them, the accident had been solely caused by the pursuer's own fault. He was a very experienced deck crew rigger, he had a special interest in safety and he well knew how to handle the container in safety. In particular, he knew only to place his hands on the flat sides of the container if he required to push it, and never to place his fingers or hand in a "pinch point" such as that which would be created between the west end of the container and the steel frame at the east end of the piece of equipment behind it. The pursuer accepted that he was well aware of these rules of safety. In evidence, he did not accept that he had been in any way careless. He had not intended to place his finger in a pinch point or position of danger and he had no recollection of having done so. At first he had thought that it was only the tip of his glove that had been caught. Thereafter he realised that the tip of his finger had been caught inside the tip of the glove.

[22] Counsel for the defenders submitted that in this case a finding of 100% contributory negligence on the part of the pursuer would be both competent and appropriate. She referred to the Opinion of Lord Emslie in McEwan v Lothian Buses plc 2006 Rep LR 134 at para 31:

"It is not unknown for the degree of carelessness or inattention established against a pursuer to be held insufficient to warrant the making of any finding of contributory negligence under the 1945 Act, and I am unable to see any logical reason why the same should not apply at the other end of the spectrum where the degree of fault on the part of the defenders can similarly be regarded as too small to warrant an apportionment."

[23] Counsel for the defenders relied on evidence from Mr Rennie that the pursuer had admitted to him that he had had a lapse of concentration which resulted in the injury to his finger, as Mr Rennie had recorded in the incident report. She also relied upon the evidence of Mr Wallace to the effect that the pursuer carried some responsibility for his injury as he should have known that putting his hand around the corner of the container exposed him to an unacceptable risk of injury. Mr Wallace had been of the view that the prime responsibility for the injury to the pursuer lay with the defenders as he considered that they did not have a suitable and sufficient lifting operation risk assessment nor a manual handling assessment carried out for the operation. He also considered that Mr Rennie carried "significant responsibility" for the injury as he had failed to have the length of pipe removed from the pipe deck and adequately to inspect the work area and to have had it made safe before the loading operations were commenced. He had also failed to discuss the hazards involved in the work with the pursuer and to have agreed on a safe system of work.

[24] The conversation between the pursuer and Mr Rennie in the sickbay shortly after the accident has to be approached with some care because the pursuer was in a state of shock and it is apparent that Mr Rennie was not attempting any form of comprehensive investigation into the circumstances of the accident. What the incident report narrates, namely that the pursuer "admitted having a lapse of concentration which resulted in him injuring a finger on his left hand", is not, in my view, an admission of sole fault. It is little more than what was self-evident given that the pursuer's finger had been caught in a pinch point and he knew that it should not have been there.

[25] In my opinion the concession by Mr Wallace that the pursuer carries some responsibility for his injury is, in the circumstances, an inevitable concession. When the pursuer placed his fingers in a place of danger he failed in his duty to take reasonable care for his own safety. The defenders failed in duties both at common law and under the 1992 Regulations and by those failures materially contributed to the risk of injury to the pursuer. I can find no logical basis for finding that the responsibility of either the pursuer or the defenders for the loss suffered by the pursuer was greater than that of the other and accordingly I consider it just and equitable that the damages payable to the pursuer should be reduced by 50%.

Quantum
[26] There was substantial agreement between the parties as to the accuracy of the medical records relating to the pursuer which had been produced. The pursuer had been examined by Mr QGN Cox, Consultant Orthopaedic and Hand Surgeon at Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, on 24 February 2010. His report dated 23 March 2010 following that examination was produced and parties were agreed that it contained a true and accurate narration of the pursuer's relevant medical history, the treatment received by him for the injury sustained on 2 April 2007 and his current condition, and also that it provided a fair and accurate expert prognosis for the pursuer relative to that injury.

[27] The pursuer was admitted to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary on the afternoon of 2 April 2007. He was assessed in the accident and emergency department and given painkilling medication. He had taken the tip of his finger with him in case it could be used to cover the stump, but that proved not to be the case. An operation was performed that evening when the bone edges were trimmed and the wound was cleaned and left open. No stitches were inserted. He was discharged from hospital the following day and his wife travelled by public transport from their home in Skye to Aberdeen to collect his car, which he had left there when he went offshore, and then drove him approximately 240 miles home. Some nine days thereafter the pursuer attended at his local community hospital in Broadford and his finger was redressed. He also received out-patient treatment at Portree Hospital. He attended his general practitioner on six occasions for prescription of analgesia and dressing and redressing his finger. He also received a course of physiotherapy over three or four sessions at Broadfoot Hospital. During this period of treatment the pursuer's finger was very painful, especially when the dressing was changed. The wound was extremely sensitive and he had to take great care to protect it from any contact.

[28] At the date of proof the pursuer was aged 51. At the time of the accident he was aged 48 and living at Portree with his wife and two sons, then aged 14 and 17. His younger son, Stewart, suffered from cerebral palsy. He required constant attention. The pursuer's normal routine was to work offshore for two weeks and then spend two weeks at home. During his two weeks offshore his wife acted as Stewart's principal carer with some support from her parents who were in their 70s. When the pursuer was at home he became Stewart's principal carer and provided respite for his wife's parents. Stewart attended school, but at the time of the accident was on his Easter holidays. When the pursuer returned home on 3 April 2007, his wife required to care for him too and the pursuer's ability to assist with the care of Stewart was seriously impaired. The pursuer required help to bathe and to dress and he was unable to drive. His wife required to drive him to numerous appointments with his general practitioner and at Portree and Broadford Hospitals. During this period the pursuer was also unable to carry out his normal share of the household tasks.

[29] He returned to his pre-accident employment at about the end of June 2007. Since then his accident injury has not interfered with his employment. Since his return to work the pursuer has joined the RNLI for which he required to undergo a medical examination. According to Mr Cox, the pursuer has made a significant, but incomplete, recovery from the injury to his left middle finger. He has received no further treatment but his finger remains sensitive to touch on a daily basis and becomes extremely sensitive in cold weather. According to Mr Cox there is approximately 20% reduction of grip in the pursuer's non-dominant left hand and an approximately 5% impairment of function. The nail is in place and, apart from a 7mm shortening of the finger, the cosmetic appearance is good.

Mr Cox provided the following prognosis:

"It is now nearly 3 years since the injury, and he has been able to return to his employment despite ongoing symptoms. There is therefore no definite indication for further treatment of his left middle finger. However, the tenderness over the stump of the digit is probably sufficient for consideration to be given to revision of the stump of the middle finger, to both re-shape it and possibly shorten back any terminal branches of the digital nerves which may be producing pain with or without neuroma formation. Such a procedure could be undertaken using local anaesthetic, although it would probably require him to be off his employment for a further period of 6-8 weeks.

Any further procedure may exacerbate the cold intolerance, which now that he is more than 2 years from injury, will be coming towards a plateau of improvement. An exacerbation of such cold intolerance following further surgical intervention would again reduce somewhat over a further 2 years. This cold sensitivity is extremely common after this type of injury, and the balance of probabilities is that it will therefore remain long-term.

There is no other treatment which is indicated or could be considered for [the pursuer's] left middle finger at this stage.

From the information available, the injury sustained to [the pursuer's] left middle finger did not involve any fracture. He is thus not at a significantly increased risk of developing degenerative changes in this digit as a result of the index injury.

[The pursuer] returned to his employment within a time period consistent with recovery from the injury sustained, and possibly slightly quicker than some people following this type of injury. I believe the balance of probabilities is that he will not be prevented from continuing his current type of work up to the age at which he wishes to retire, as a result of ongoing sequelae of the injury sustained on 2 April 2007."

[30] The pursuer's position in evidence was that he had only recently learned of the possibility of further operative treatment from Mr Cox's report. The pursuer candidly stated that he did not want the pain of another operation, nor the disruption which it would bring. Mr Cox had suggested to him that the prospects of success were no better than 50-50. He wanted to wait and see how sensitive his finger felt in cold weather. My impression was that the pursuer would be most reluctant to undergo an operation similar to that performed on the day of the accident, the pain and discomfort of the subsequent period of recovery and the exacerbation of cold intolerance described by Mr Cox and which was likely to last for some two years after the date of any further surgery. My impression of the pursuer as he gave his evidence was that he would be unlikely to undergo further surgery for these reasons.

[31] With regard to solatium, both parties referred to the Judicial Studies Board's "Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases". Counsel for the defenders submitted that the nearest similar injury to be found in the Guidelines was the loss of the terminal phalanx of the middle finger where the range of awards was from £2,500 to £5,000. Counsel for the pursuer submitted that the degree of care which the pursuer required to take of his vulnerable and sensitive middle finger meant that regard should be had to the figure of £10,000 which was the guideline figure for the total loss of a middle finger. He also submitted that the figure for future solatium should be the same whether or not the pursuer chose to undergo further surgery. Counsel for the defenders referred to three decisions, all of which were broadly consistent with the range recommended in the Guidelines. These were McIntosh v Dundee Port Authority, McEwan & Paton on Damages in Scotland, para CN11-17, Stark v Nairn Floors Ltd 1993 SLT 717 and Beck v United Closures & Plastics plc 2001 SLT 1299. Having regard to the decisions in these cases, to the Guidelines and to the circumstances of the pursuer in light of the terms of Mr Cox's report and the pursuer's own evidence, I have reached the conclusion that the appropriate figure for solatium is £5,500 of which £3,500 is for past solatium and £2,000 for the future. In arriving at this latter figure I am conscious of the difficult position in which the pursuer finds himself in light of Mr Cox's prognosis and advice.

[32] The pursuer's past wage loss, which related to the period from 2 April 2007 to 30 May 2007 was agreed at £2,429.79. It was also agreed that the pursuer's net monthly earnings at the date of proof were about £3,000. Counsel for the pursuer submitted that an award in respect of future loss of earnings of £6,000 would be appropriate to reflect an eight week absence from employment during the further operative treatment referred to in Mr Cox's prognosis. Counsel for the defenders submitted that no award should be made under this head because of the pursuer's evidence that he was unlikely to have such an operation. I agree with counsel for the defenders' submission and make no award under this head. In any event, there was no evidence as to what the pursuer's actual loss of earnings would be likely to be in that event.

[33] Counsel for the pursuer submitted that an award should be made to compensate the pursuer for his disadvantage in the employment market. Counsel for the defenders submitted that no such award should be made. In my opinion there is no evidence to justify the making of such an award. He had been in secure employment for 21 years. Mr Rennie regarded him as "supervisor material". In the absence of any expert evidence on the subject, it was not self-evident to me that the pursuer would be at any disadvantage on the labour market if he ever found himself there.

[34] Finally, the pursuer makes a services claim under sections 8 and 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. The claim under section 9 relates to a period of approximately three months when the pursuer was unable to undertake the practical care required by his son Stewart. If the accident had not occurred, the pursuer would have been working offshore for half of that time, and during a substantial part of it Stewart would have been at school. The claim under section 8 relates to the services rendered by the pursuer's wife and relates to a period of approximately four weeks. Having regard to the evidence which was led from the pursuer and his wife as to the nature of the services to which these claims relate, I award a total of £1,200 in respect of the combined section 8 and section 9 claims. Counsel for the pursuer proposed that this figure should be apportioned two-thirds in respect of the claim under section 9 and one-third for the claim under section 8. In the absence of any objection from the defenders, I am prepared to make the apportionment on that basis.

Summary of award

The award of damages may be summarised as follows:

1	Solatium		£	£
	(a)	Past solatium	3,500.00
	(b)	Add interest at 4 per cent per annum from 2 April 2007	516.00
	(c)	Future solatium	2,000.00
				6,016.00
2	Past loss of earnings		2,429.79
	Add interest at 4 per cent per annum from 2 April 2007 to 30 May 2007		15.44
	Add interest at 8 per cent from 1 June 2007		684.86
				3,130.09
3	Past services		1,200.00
	Add interest at 8 per cent from 1 July 2007		330.35
				1,530.35
				£10,676.44

In light of my finding of 50% contributory negligence by the pursuer, I shall grant decree for payment by the defenders to the pursuer of the sum of £5,338.22.

[35] I was asked by counsel for the pursuer to certify Mr Ian Wallace and Mr Q G N Cox as expert witnesses, and I shall do so.