The High Court has revised several damages figures in a case brought by P.D.P. against the Health Service Executive, after the parties agreed to some changes and disputed how future pension losses should be valued.
In an addendum dated 19 February 2013 to a judgment delivered on 21 December 2012, Mr Justice O’Neill recorded agreement to replace the applicant’s loss of earnings to date with €227,439, up from €178,625. The interest figure was changed from €29,265 to €48,139.
The parties also agreed that the previously stated €30,358 for pension loss and €10,645 for loss of gratuity should be replaced, but they disagreed on the replacement amounts. Actuaries for both sides agreed on six pension and gratuity calculations totalling €103,110, using a 3% interest rate and standard life expectancy tables. The applicant’s actuary also proposed higher figures for three pension items, reflecting the cost of an annuity that could cover a life beyond the standard expectancy used in the calculations.
The judge found no evidence warranting a departure from the standard method for valuing future pension loss. He also said the concern raised by the respondent’s actuary that public sector pensions might be reduced in future was speculative. The court therefore assessed pension and gratuity losses together at €103,110, replacing the two earlier figures.
The HSE sought a €95,890 credit, representing the net capital value of a pension the applicant could receive between then and his compulsory retirement in August 2017. The respondent argued the amount should reduce the pension loss calculated from August 2017 onward. The judge rejected that approach, finding the later calculation was unaffected by whether the applicant began drawing the pension earlier.
The judge considered whether the amount could instead be deducted as mitigation of loss. Although the applicant had not been questioned on the point, counsel said he did not want to retire because he hoped to return to teaching. The court said it could not force retirement in those circumstances and concluded that refusing to retire did not amount to a failure to mitigate loss of earnings. It also noted that the pension would replace income lost before retirement, and declined the deduction.
The addendum further directs that the €736,984 figure in paragraph 303 of the earlier judgment be replaced by €866,777. It does not otherwise set out the underlying judgment or the full damages calculation.