Page 48 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 047

(a) CL cannot justify any award for Loss of Congenial Employment. Pre-accident
records demonstrate CL struggling to cope (both as to health and family
considerations) with his flying roster. He will in any event be able to continue in
the aviation field.
(b) Travel claims will be extinguished by saved costs of work journeys not taken.
(c) Medical expenses relating to non-accident-related issues will not be recoverable.
( d) Flight training costs may have been incurred in any event as CL looked to refocus
his career to avoid the demands of the roster with which he clearly struggled.

� 12. As for the loss of earnigs claim: -
(a) DEF challenges the causation of CL's cessation offiying and his EasyJet role for
the reasons identified above.
(b) DEF will claim that CL was in any event likely to have reduced his working hours
during the future loss period, thereby reducing the non-accident multiplicand,
closer to or even beyond his residual earning capacity.
( c) CL has failed to mitigate his loss, whether impacted by the existence of the
insurance policy or in any event. He could, and should, have established himself in
an alternative role long before now.
( d) Accordingly it is inappropriate for CL to be classed as "unemployed" for the
purpose of Reduction Factors ("RF's").
(e) CL is capable of deploying his aviation-based skills (including piloting, leadership
and management experience) to generate a residual income far in excess of the
earnigs levels for which he contends. DEF's expert evidence \\ill consider his
alternatives in detail, which v.-ill include prospects of CL actually earning more
from instructor work than he would have done had he continued piloting at a level
he could sustain.
(t) CL has significant prospects of being able to return to flying, such that the
assessment of future loss on a long term multiplier/multiplicand basis is unjustified.
There are numerous "imponderables" associated with the underlying medical
issues, non-accident career developments and residual capacity (which is cmrently
untested due to CL's failure to mitigate his loss). If any loss is established, a
Blamire or Smith v Manchester award is applicable.
(g) CL also truces no account of additional aspects of any residual package (yet seeks to
take them fully into account in respect of his Easy Jet role).
111 (h) DEF requires disclosure of all documentation relating to CL's insurance policy� in
addition to the family-related documents identified.

Discount rate
13. CL's USO assumes that the current discount rate \\ill prevail when this matter reaches
trial. This is far from guaranteed, with significant prospects that it will have revened to
a figure between 0% and +1%.