Claimant can't get no satisfaction

District Judge Julie Exton investigates the value of an enjoyable and satisfying job

While the Law Commission regard it as 'merely an aspect of pain and suffering and loss of amenity,' nevertheless it is now clear law that a claimant may receive separate compensation for loss of congenial employment.

How much? Not much is the answer.

Awards in the region of 5,000 are the norm.

This is hardly surprising given the fact that such an award is on top of any other awards for future loss of earnings and disadvantage on the labour market.

This approach has been confirmed recently in Willbye v Gibbons [2003] EWCA Civ 372, where the claimant had to abandon a childhood ambition to be a nursery nurse as a result of injuries sustained.

Lord Justice Kennedy said: 'It is important to keep this head of damages in proportion.

The appellant is being compensated for being unable to pursue a career she thought she would have enjoyed.

She never actually embarked on that career although she probably had the ability to obtain the qualifications required, and in financial terms she has already been fully reimbursed, so this is really an award for a particular disappointment, which may or may not be prolonged.'

The Court of Appeal substituted 5,000 for the Recorder's award of 15,000.

Who gets it? There have been recent awards to a nurse (Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] EWHC 2091) and a female police officer (Rowntree v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2001) LTL, 31 October) for 5,000 and 6,000 respectively.

But it is not just available to 'public service' employees.

Other successful claimants include a trainee dancer and a trainee naval electrical engineer.

Who won't get it? If your client is hiding a medical condition from his employer, the concealment of which would, in itself, have justified dismissal, then public policy prohibits compensation for loss of congenial employment following an accident at work (Hewison v Meridian [2002] EWCA Civ 1821).

Nor will he succeed if he has not been doing the particular job for very long.

In McCrae v Chase International Express Ltd (2003) LTL, 14 March, the claimant, a motorcycle courier, gave evidence that 'motor cycling has always been my life.' However, Lord Justice Kennedy expressed surprise that 'it had taken him about 20 years of working life to reach that employment, never having previously worked from a motor cycle before.' He was refused an award.

What about the likes of street cleaners? The Oxford Dictionary defines 'congenial' as, among other things, 'suited to one's taste or inclination.' In other words, it should be a subjective test.

So, if your client has been sweeping roads for ten years and enjoys the outdoor life it provides, there seems no reason at all why he, too, should not be compensated for the loss of his particular congenial employment.

District Judge Julie Exton sits at Weston Super Mare County Court