David Fleming Morrison v Whiteinch Demolition Ltd - Court of
Session, 21 February 2006
David Morrison suffered a significant hip fracture and
psychological injury as a result of an accident on 10 May 2002 when
the large beam section of a crane toppled over on to him. He raised
an action for £500,000 against his employers and the case settled
for £200,000. Mr Morrison's Solicitors sought and additional fee
uplift whereby the Pursuer's Solicitor's expenses would be
increased by an additional percentage uplift.
In connection with complexity, reference was made to the extent
and severity of the Pursuer's skeletal and internal injuries. It
was argued for Mr. Morrison that it was not a run of the mill
crushing injury. Mr. Morrison might need one or two hip
replacements in the future. His mobility was impaired. There was an
issue between the parties in relation to other medical factors and
a range of other complaints which impacted on Mr. Morrison's
mobility and ability to work. He suffered from other pre-accident
medical conditions which might or might not have a causal
connection to the accident. Mr. Morrison had significant
psychological problems. There were a range of complex and difficult
issues. It was necessary to work out how each medical condition
could be related to the accident. A range of medical experts had
been involved.
It was also argued that the skill, time, labour and specialised
knowledge of Mr. Morrison's Solicitor were beyond the norm. A high
level of skill was required in acting on behalf of and managing a
client who was very depressed and not very intelligent and who
continued to be a suicide risk. Meetings required to be at Mr.
Morrison's home. This increased the time and labour required.
In relation to the importance of the cause or the subject matter
to the client, Mr. Morrison was a relatively young man from whom
much had been taken. At present he lived in an unsuitable local
authority house which had been little adapted. He would need
finance to adapt a house. The damages would facilitate a pain
management programme at an establishment in Liverpool.
Lord McPhail rejected the additional fee submission. The
Defenders had admitted liability at an early stage which reduced
the burden on the Pursuer's Solicitors. The sum sued for and the
figure at which the case had settled were not unusual in the Court
of Session. While the medical consequences of the accident where
not only serious but both physical and psychiatric in nature, they
were not so complex as to take the case out of the range of
personal injury actions normally dealt with in the Court of
Session. There was no suggestion that it had been difficult to find
appropriate medical experts and obtain advice from them.
Differences between medical experts and in relation to the
calculation of future wage loss were not unusual. Dealing with a
rather difficult client who could only be seen in Greenock did not
justify an additional fee. Lord Macphail accepted without
hesitation that the case must be important to Mr. Morrison but the
question of how the damages should be applied was no more
exceptional than other cases where a substantial award is made to a
disabled Pursuer.
While there were no complicated liability issues, this was a
case involving complicated quantum issues with a substantial value.
Lord Macphail's decision assists in supporting the rejection of
additional fee requests in routine personal injury actions.