Al Conner v Bradman & Company Ltd  EWHC 2789 (QB)
Claimant sustained knee injury as a result of accident and despite arthroscopic surgery would never be able to work as a mechanic again. Agreed that following a knee replacement he would be able to work as a taxi driver for which he had been training. Claimant aged 50 years.
Main issue was whether Claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Claimant found to be disabled - the restrictions on Claimant's mobility meant that there was a "substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities" and court was required, on account of paragraphs B11 and B12 of the General Guidance Notes issued by the Secretary of State, to disregard the arthroscopic surgery and future knee replacement.
Smith v Manchester award found to be inappropriate owing to the certainty of Claimant's future loss of earnings, and conventional multiplicand/multiplier approach taken. With reference to the Ogden tables the multiplier for the residual earnings would have been discounted by 0.49 to reflect the fact that disabled employees are out of employment more than others but in this case Judge changed discount to 0.665 to reflect that there was no medical reason to suggest that Claimant would not be able to continue working as a taxi driver for the next 10 - 15 years. Figure of 0.665 was arrived at as a mid-point between the 0.82 discount for the multiplier for a non-disabled person and the 0.49 discount for the multiplier for a disabled person.