Chan v. London Bus Company (Unrep) 14.11.19
14th November 2019
A 51-year-old IT Trainer sustained a brain injury in a cycling accident in London when cut up by a bus.
It took him 4 years to secure a liability compromise 99% in his favour before any rehabilitation could commence.
He was left with acute fatigue and a reduced ability to cope with hassle and reduced motivation and heightened anger. He was unable to return to his career, but his loss of earnings was militated by a generous PHI policy paying 75% of his salary at the time of the accident.
The battleground between the parties was whether so many years post-accident he needed, or would accept a comprehensive support package comprising a head injury trained case manager and some support worker involvement for the rest of his working life.
A further issue between the Parties was whether there was a heightened dementia risk in old age and, if so, whether it should be quantified now on a chance basis rather then tied up on a provisional damages award.
It was agreed that he had borderline capacity with the presumption of capacity provided under the mental Capacity Act 2015 preserved.
The parties negotiated a compromise of these issues with a lump sum award of £700,000.
The Defendant asked for the settlement to be approved by a Master by reference to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under s. 19(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, applying the principle established by Teare J in Coles v. Perfect  EWHC 1955, notwithstanding the fact that the presumption of capacity was not displaced.
Master Cook acceded to that request and approved the settlement.