Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999

The claimant appealed the calculation of damages for future losses of earmings.
Held: The cross appeal on general damages failed, the effect of the injury of the plaintiff’s general enjoyment of life justified the award. As to the future earnings, the accident had been followed many months later by a strike, which the judge had held the plaintiff would have taken part in. 80% of the strikers had been dismissed. The judge restricted his losses accordingly. The claimaint had argued that a settlement was in train which would lead to a cash sum being offered to each sacked striker. After judgement this was fixed at andpound;28,000. In this case he had been discouraged from pursuing this point at trial, and the court had been inadvertently misled. Given this, the court should exercise its discretion to act upon evidence becoming available after the trial, and award the additional sum.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Judge

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1704

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.146619

Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999

In personal injury cases, a judge deciding on the award of costs after a payment in, and where a benefits recovery was to take effect, was to judge the issue of costs by measuring the offer against the payment in or written offer, aggregated with the effect of the benefits to be deducted.

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1519

Statutes:

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages, Costs

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.146434

Liddell v Middleton: CA 17 Jul 1995

A husband and wife crossed a road. The wife, appreciating that the danger from the traffic, ran across. The husband stood in the middle of the road and then went ahead, but was struck by a vehicle and injured. He was significantly affected by alcohol, and evidence had been led at the trial indicating the effect of alcohol on accident statistics, particularly relating to men. The judge concluded that the husband was 25 per cent to blame for the accident.
Held: The driver’s appeal succeeded to the extent that the plaintiff was 50% responsible for his injuries.
Stuart-Smith LJ considered the correct approach to the fact that the husband had been affected by alcohol in the context of the issue of apportionment. He replied to a submission which sought to equate the approach to a drunken driver to the situation of a drunken pedestrian, as follows: ‘That may be so in the case of a driver who puts himself in the control of an object which is capable of great damage if it is not properly controlled, but I am not persuaded that it makes a significant difference in this case in the case of a pedestrian. It seems to me that the pedestrian’s conduct has to be judged by what he did rather than the explanation as to why he did it.’ Having referred to the statistical information which had been before the judge, he said: ‘The result of that statistical survey is no doubt a matter of expert knowledge not available to a layman. But whether it is of any material assistance in this case is another matter. It is not the fact that a plaintiff has consumed too much alcohol that matters, it is what he does. If he steps in front of a car travelling at 30 mph at a time when the driver has no opportunity to avoid an accident, that is a very dangerous and unwise thing to do. The explanation of his conduct may be that he was drunk: but the fact of drunkenness does not, in my judgment, make the conduct any more or less dangerous and it does not in these circumstances increase the blameworthiness of it.’
As to the test of admissibility laid down in the 1972 Act 1972: ‘But that section in no way extends the principles upon which expert evidence is admissible. An expert is only qualified to give expert evidence on a relevant matter, if his knowledge and expertise relate to a matter which is outside the knowledge and experience of a layman. In the reference to an ‘issue in the proceedings in question’ relates to a factual issue and not to the conclusion of law based upon such fact’.
Stuart-Smith LJ laid down the limits of expert evidence: ‘In such cases the function of the expert is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria and assistance based upon his special skill and experience not possessed by ordinary laymen to enable the Judge to interpret the factual evidence of the marks on the road, the damage or whatever it may be. What he is not entitled to do is to say in effect ‘I have considered the statements and special evidence of the eyewitnesses in this case and I conclude from their evidence that the defendant was going at a certain speed, or that he could have seen the plaintiff at a certain point’. These are facts for the trial Judge to find based on the evidence that he accepts and such inferences as he draws from the primary facts found. Still less is the expert entitled to say that in his opinion the defendant should have sounded his horn, seen the plaintiff before he did or taken avoiding action and that in taking some action or failing to take some other action, a party was guilty of negligence. These are matters for the Court, on which the expert’s opinion is wholly irrelevant and therefore inadmissible’.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Peter Gibson and Hutchison LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-Jul-1995, (1996) PIQR 36

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1), Civil Evidence Act 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBailey v Warre CA 7-Feb-2006
The claimant had been severely injured in a road traffic accident. His claim was compromised and embodied in a court order, but later a question was raised as to whether he had had mental capacity at the time to make the compromise he had.
CitedLunt v Khelifa CA 22-May-2002
The claimant pedestrian had been injured when hit by a car driven by the defendant as she stepped into the roadway. Both parties appealed against the assessment of contributory negligence. The claimant had a blood alcohol level three times that . .
CitedAllen v Cornwall Council QBD 20-May-2015
The claimant was injured riding his bicycle, and alleged failure by the respondent highway authority. The court now considered an application for leave to appeal against an order allowing the production of evidence of an expert in cycling skills and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.83063

Norris (Suing By her Next Friend Norris) v Tennant-Smith: CA 7 Sep 1995

The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after being struck by the defendant’s car. He had emerged from between parked cars into the path of the defendant.
Held: The judge’s findings were essentially ones of fact, and his conclusion that the defendant driver had not been negligent could not be disturbed. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Roch Lord Justice Swinton Thomas -And- Lord Justice Aldous

Citations:

[1995] EWCA Civ 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.140361

Taleb v Trina Coaches Ltd: CA 5 Oct 2009

The claimant cyclist said that the defendant’s coach driver had caught her handlebar causing her to fall and be injured as he passed her on Euston Road. She appealed against a decision that she had not established that the driver was at fault, despite having found the driver’s evidence to be inconsistent. She said that the judge had incorrectly relied on and misinterpreted the CCTV evidence.
Held: The judge had rejected the claimant’s evidence for no good reason. Her error was not a sufficient basis for his conclusion. The CCTV evidence did not show the actual event, and the judge had been wrong to rely on it to overrule her evidence. Though an appeal court will only rarely reverse a judge’s interpretation of the facts and evidence, this was one case where they should, and the appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Smith LJ, Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1250

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.381577

AB and Others v Nugent Care Society: CA 29 Jul 2009

‘These appeals raise questions as to the correct approach to the application of section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 1 AC 844. Each appeal arises out of allegations of historic sexual abuse at a children’s home or homes. ‘

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 827, [2009] LS Law Medical 524, [2009] Fam Law 1045, [2010] PIQR P3, [2010] 1 FLR 707, [2010] 1 WLR 516

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMcDonnell and Another v Walker CA 24-Nov-2009
The defendant appealed against the disapplication of section 11 of the 1980 Act under section 33.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had not contributed significantly to the delay: ‘the defendant received claims quite different in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.365610

Waide, Re Judicial Review: CANI 9 Jan 2008

Appeal from a decision dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel’s decision that she should not receive criminal injuries compensation. The appellant, while playing in a public park, had been struck by a motorcycle causing her serious leg injuries. The panel refused an award of compensation on the grounds that it was not satisfied that there had been a deliberate attempt by the driver of the motorcycle to inflict injury on any person.

Judges:

Kerr LCJ, Campbell LJ and Higgins LJ

Citations:

[2008] NICA 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Personal Injury

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.263910

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte Cook: CA 22 Dec 1995

Where the board was refusing an application, it need not set out every matter which it had taken into account.

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-1995, [1996] 2 All ER 144, [1996] 1 WLR 1037

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina on Application of M v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Admn 31-Aug-2001
The complainant had suffered repeated acts of sexual abuse as a child including acts of penetration. She sought compensation under the scheme, but was initially refused on the basis that it was not a crime of violence, then later awarded pounds . .
CitedRegina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Moore CA 23-Apr-1999
Where a claimant acquired a criminal conviction after the claim had been referred to a single board member for decision, he was entitled, despite the absence of an explicit rule, to refer the case back to the board. Reasons for a decision should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.86471

De Freitas v O’Brien: CA 2 Feb 1995

The plaintiff appealed refusal of her claim for damages for personal injury.

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ, Otton LJ

Citations:

[1995] EWCA Civ 28, [1995] PIQR 281, [1995] 6 Med LR 108, [1955-95] PNLR 680

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.259338

Seymour v Williams: CA 1995

The plaintiff issued proceedings against her father and mother, alleging physical and sexual abuse against her father and want of parental care against her mother. The claim against the father was in trespass, but that against her mother was in negligence.
Held: The claim against the father was governed by the six years limitation period, and that against the mother by the three year limitation period. Both were out of time, but the Act gave discretion to extend the three year limited claim in negligence. The Court found this anomalous, and invited the Law Commission to consider the anomaly that different periods of limitation apply to a claim against a perpetrator of abuse and to a claim against someone for negligently failing to prevent that abuse with only the latter having a potential extension.

Judges:

Russell LJ, Millett LJ and Sir Ralph Gibson

Citations:

[1995] PIQR P470

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA v Hoare QBD 14-Oct-2005
The defendant had been convicted and sentenced for the attempted rape of the claimant. He had subsequently won a substantial sum on the lottery, and she now sought damages. He replied that the action was statute barred being now 16 years old. The . .
CitedKR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003
The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.235389

Dixon v Were: QBD 26 Oct 2004

The claimant and others were being driven by the defendant. All had drunk, and none wore seat belts. The claimant sought damages for his injuries. General damages were agreed, and the issue was as to loss of future earnings.
Held: The claimant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a loss of future high earnings. He did retain some capacity, but would have to receive some forms of nursing care.

Judges:

Gross J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2273 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHerring v Ministry of Defence CA 10-Apr-2003
The claimant had suffered serious injury in a parachuting accident which deprived him of the opportunity of pursuing his chosen career in the police force. The judge found ‘to the extent of virtual certainty’ that he would have applied to join the . .
CitedMallett v McMonagle HL 1970
The House discussed the role of the court in assessing future losses. Lord Diplock: ‘The role of the court in making an assessment of damages which depends upon its view as to what will be and what would have been is to be contrasted with its . .
CitedAllied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons CA 12-May-1995
Lost chance claim – not mere speculative claim
Solicitors failed to advise the plaintiffs sufficiently in a property transaction. A warranty against liability for a former tenant’s obligations under leases had not been obtained. The trial judge held that, on a balance of probabilities, there was . .
CitedDoyle (By Her Mother and Next Friend) v Wallace CA 18-Jun-1998
A court awarding personal injury damages could make allowance for a prospective increase in salary which a claimant might have achieved upon completion of qualifications. In this case an increase was allowed at half up from an administrative pay . .
CitedDavies v Taylor HL 1974
The plaintiff’s husband was killed in a road accident caused by the defendant’s negligence. They were childless. She had deserted him five weeks before his death and thereafter, he learned about her adultery with a fellow employee. He tried to . .
CitedLangford v Hebran and Another CA 15-Mar-2001
The claimant sought damages for the loss of his chances of pursuing his career as a kick-boxer. The judge considered four different courses of varying success which his career might have taken. He accepted that, whether or not those scenarios had . .
CitedWhite v Fell 12-Nov-1987
The court was asked to decide whether the claimant had been incapable of managing her property and affairs in the context of a Limitation Act defence.
Held: There are three features to which it is appropriate to have regard when assessing a . .
CitedMasterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1) CA 19-Dec-2002
Capacity for Litigation
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the . .
CitedWoodrup v Nicol CA 1993
To decide the reasonableness of private medical and related expenses, regard must be had to section 2(4) [of the 1948 Act], which entails: ‘if, on the balance of probabilities, a plaintiff is going to use private medicine in the future as a matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.218854

Hippolyte v London Borough of Bexley: CA 1995

In many cases the trial judge is in a better position than an appellate court to make the correct finding as to inferences from the facts found: ‘It is in my judgment very important to bear in mind that this is an appeal on issues of fact, albeit that it involves, principally, a challenge to inferences. It is important to note the approach that the law requires of an appellant court. Where there has been no misdirection on fact by the trial judge, the presumption is that his conclusion is correct. The appellate court will only reverse it where it is convinced that it is wrong. In such a case, if the appellate court is merely left in doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion, then it will uphold it. For my part, I am satisfied that nowhere in the judgment is there to be found any misdirection by the judge. Indeed, I pay tribute to a careful and balanced judgment. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that even in relation to inferences from established fact, a trial judge is often in a superior position to the Court of Appeal. This is, in my judgment, such a case. I say that because what we are concerned with is a judge’s interpretation of primary facts, and it is that interpretation which has proved to be the decisive matter in the case.’

Judges:

Steyn LJ

Citations:

[1995] PIQR P309

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKearn-Price v Kent County Council CA 30-Oct-2002
The claimant was injured, being hit in the face by a football in a school playground. It was before school started. There had been accidents, and there were rules which had not been enforced. The school appealed a finding of negligence.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.214303

Regina on Application of M v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel: Admn 31 Aug 2001

The complainant had suffered repeated acts of sexual abuse as a child including acts of penetration. She sought compensation under the scheme, but was initially refused on the basis that it was not a crime of violence, then later awarded pounds 2,000. Later again, the Panel agreed to make a payment but reduced it because of her convictions, back to the same amount. She complained that the decision was insufficiently detailed to allow analysis. She wanted proper sufficient and intelligible reasons.
Held: The panel had failed to give such reasons in three respects, and the decision was quashed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Hooper

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 720

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte Cook CA 22-Dec-1995
Where the board was refusing an application, it need not set out every matter which it had taken into account. . .
CitedRe Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
CitedRegina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Ex Parte Leatherland; similar QBD 12-Oct-2000
The practice of withholding the reasons for a decision until the day of an appeal which had come to be adopted was unfair and bad administration. The Tribunal should give proper reasons for its decision, together with the gist of any evidence which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.166588

Herring v Ministry of Defence: CA 10 Apr 2003

The claimant had suffered serious injury in a parachuting accident which deprived him of the opportunity of pursuing his chosen career in the police force. The judge found ‘to the extent of virtual certainty’ that he would have applied to join the police when the time was right, probably when he was aged 30, and that there was a strong likelihood that his application would have been successful. The claimant sought damages for personal injuries. The issue at appeal was how the future loss of earnings was to be calculated to allow for the anticipated career. The claimamt complained that the judge had applied too great a discount to the normal Ogden Tables.
Held: The court had to look to the most likely future career and earnings of the claimant. Where he was not yet in an established job, it might be possible to select an appropriate career model and apply an appropriate multiplicand. If not an average earnings figure could be applied. Where it was to be based upon a specified anticipated career, the chance of leaving that career might not be significant where he could expect similar remuneration elsewhere. Such assessments had not traditionally involved percentage calculations for loss of a chance based on the acts of third parties. Where a specified career was envisaged, the percentage reduction method would normally be inappropriate. It should not have been used here, and the reduction in the multiplier was itself reduced, increasing the award.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Tuckey Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 528, Times 11-Apr-2003, Gazette 19-Jun-2003, [2004] 1 All ER 44

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAllied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons CA 12-May-1995
Lost chance claim – not mere speculative claim
Solicitors failed to advise the plaintiffs sufficiently in a property transaction. A warranty against liability for a former tenant’s obligations under leases had not been obtained. The trial judge held that, on a balance of probabilities, there was . .
CitedLangford v Hebran and Another CA 15-Mar-2001
The claimant sought damages for the loss of his chances of pursuing his career as a kick-boxer. The judge considered four different courses of varying success which his career might have taken. He accepted that, whether or not those scenarios had . .
CitedDoyle (By Her Mother and Next Friend) v Wallace CA 18-Jun-1998
A court awarding personal injury damages could make allowance for a prospective increase in salary which a claimant might have achieved upon completion of qualifications. In this case an increase was allowed at half up from an administrative pay . .

Cited by:

CitedDixon v Were QBD 26-Oct-2004
The claimant and others were being driven by the defendant. All had drunk, and none wore seat belts. The claimant sought damages for his injuries. General damages were agreed, and the issue was as to loss of future earnings.
Held: The claimant . .
CitedBrown v Ministry of Defence CA 10-May-2006
Claim for injury suffered whilst training in Army. The claimant was committed to a career in the Army, and had anticipated promotion. She complained that her loss of pension rights had been calculated at a rate to reflect an average length career. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.180706

Hunter v British Coal Corporation, Cementation Mining Company: CA 11 Feb 1998

A workman, who did not see an accident, but suffered shock after thinking that he had caused the death, was not able to recover damages. His injury was too remote from the accident.

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-1998, Gazette 25-Mar-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 205, [1998] 2 All ER 97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.143683

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Moore: CA 23 Apr 1999

Where a claimant acquired a criminal conviction after the claim had been referred to a single board member for decision, he was entitled, despite the absence of an explicit rule, to refer the case back to the board. Reasons for a decision should normally be given. ‘The board is not required to reason out why the particular extent to reduction follows from the proved convictions . . Unless the conclusion offends logic – as this conclusion does not – it must stand. Logic does not restrict the effect of repeated offending to the gradual erosion of eligibility.’

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 14-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1254

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte Cook CA 22-Dec-1995
Where the board was refusing an application, it need not set out every matter which it had taken into account. . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Pearson Admn 11-May-1999
The claimant sought judicial review of the Board’s decision to restrict his award by two thirds for his previous driving convictions of driving with excess alcohol and driving whilst disqualified.
Held: The Board’s decision was for them. There . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.146169

King v Bristow Helicopters Limited: SCS 12 Jul 2000

The pursuer and reclaimer sought damages as reparation for ‘loss, injury and damage’ which he claims to have suffered as the result of his involvement in an incident on 22 December 1993. At the relevant time the pursuer was a passenger on board a helicopter chartered by the defenders.

Judges:

Lord President, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Reed

Citations:

[2001] 1 LLR 95, [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 95, 2001 SCLR 393, [2000] ScotCS 195

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.163935

Stinton v Stinton and Another: CA 5 Jan 1995

A passenger who was effectively involved in a joint enterprise with a drunk driver has no claim against Motor Insurers Bureau under the scheme. The MIB was not liable to a passenger who was aware that the driver had no insurance.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Jan-1995, Times 23-Nov-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.89560

Hunter v Butler: CA 28 Dec 1995

There could be no Fatal Accidents Acts damages for a loss of ‘moonlighting’ earnings dependency.

Citations:

Independent 02-Jan-1996, Times 28-Dec-1995, [1996] RTR 396

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd, Coflexip Stena Offshore Ltd, Flex Installer Offshore Ltd QBD 30-Nov-2001
The applicant had been severely injured at work. He was an epileptic, and had not disclosed his condition to his employers, who because of the safety aspects of the work on oil rigs could not have employed him if he had disclosed the sickness. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.81547

Grahan v Szerelmey (UK) Ltd and Another: CA 16 Nov 1995

Personal injury defendant claiming prejudice for delay must allow for his own profit in keeping his cash. Delay in personal injury cases rarely causes defendant any financial prejudice.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Nov-1995, Times 16-Nov-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.80965

C (A Minor) v Hackney London Borough Council: CA 10 Nov 1995

The mother had claimed in damages for the injuries to her health from the landlord authority’s failure to repair. Her child then brought a subsequent action in respect of his own injuries. The authority claimed the action should be stopped as res judicata.
Held: The child’s injuries from bad housing were a separate claim from those of her mother, and the action should proceed. The fact of the child’s disability meant that the erstwhile practice risked subverting CCR Ord 10 r10
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘I therefore reject entirely the submission that Yat Tung Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dao Heng Bank Ltd. [1975] A.C. 581 justifies extending the Talbot v. Berkshire County Council [1994] Q.B. 290 principle – that an unlitigated monetary claim is barred if it could have been advanced and established in earlier proceedings (itself to my mind an extended application of the res judicata doctrine) – to those not themselves party to the earlier proceedings.
It follows from all this that in my judgment the doctrine of res judicata even in its widest sense has simply no application to the circumstances of the present case and that the judge erred in ruling to the contrary. One does not, therefore, reach the point of asking here whether special circumstances exist to exclude it; C’s erstwhile solicitors’ suggested negligence is, frankly, an irrelevance. Nor, in my judgment, does this case come within measurable distance of any other form of abuse of process based on public policy considerations analogous to those underlying the res judicata doctrine: see, for instance, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ashmore v. British Coal Corporation [1990] 2 Q.B. 338.
All that said, this judgment should not be taken as any encouragement to lawyers or their clients to follow the course in fact adopted here. As the judge rightly recognised, in circumstances such as these, it is plainly in the public interest to have a single action in which the claims of all the affected members of the household are included rather than a multiplicity of actions . . .’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 789

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedYat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd PC 1975
Restraint of Second Action as Abuse
Hong Kong – A company purchased a property from the defendant bank who had taken it back into possession from a former borrower. The company itself fell into arrears, the property was taken back again and resold. The company sought a declaration . .
CitedTalbot v Berkshire County Council CA 23-Mar-1993
In a motor accident, both driver and passenger were injured. The passenger sued the driver. The driver’s insurers, without notice to the driver, made a third party claim against the Berkshire County Council, claiming contribution as between joint . .
CitedAshmore v British Coal Corporation CA 1990
The plaintiff was one of many female employees who complained to the industrial tribunal that she was paid less by the defendant than her male counterparts. Sample cases were selected for trial and the others stayed pending a decision. It was an . .

Cited by:

CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.78796

Winrow v Hemphill and Another: QBD 6 Oct 2014

The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident in Germany. Liability being admitted, the court now asked whether damages should be assessed according to UK or German law. The claimant was a UK national but had been resident in Germany with her husband for several years.

Judges:

Slade DBE

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3164 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation on Jurisdiction No. 44 of 2001, Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 4(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages, International

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.537358

Germany v Flatman: QBD 10 Nov 2011

In each case the defendant had succeeded in a defence of a personal injury claim, but had been unable to recover the costs, the claimant being impecunious, and the solicitors having acted on a conditional fee basis and without any after the event insurance. They now sought disclosure of the funding arrangements in detail, suspecting the action had been funded by the solicitors.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2945 (QB), [2012] 2 Costs LR 271

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.448310

Parkes v Martin: CA 9 Jul 2009

The claimant appealed against the costs order made after a trial following a road traffic accident, awarding blame as to 65% for the Claimant and 35% to the defendant. The Defendant had requested costs in that proportion. After reminding himself of CPR 44.34, the court awarded the Claimant 35% of his costs on liability. However the Order left the Defendant to pay his own costs. The appeal challenged the Order as a misdirection since the Claimant was the winner having established liability albeit with a substantial reduction for contributory negligence. The suggested appropriate course was a conventional order awarding him his costs. There was nothing before the judge to justify depriving him of 65% of his costs. On appeal the defendant argued that each party had a damages claim arising from the accident. Only by chance was the Claimant ‘first off the grid’. The order left the Claimant to recover 35% and the Defendant 65% of their respective costs. Though there was no counterclaim, the Defendant had a claim which stood by. Had there been a formal counterclaim, it was submitted, the judge could have awarded to the Claimant/Appellant the costs of the claim and to the Defendant/Respondent those of the counterclaim.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court considered Medway Oil and Storage Company Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd and Ors [1929] AC 88 where the court allowed that absent a direction by the court on apportionment any such order made on detailed assessment will produce injustice where a like issue arises on claim and on counterclaim. A court would be justified in apportioning costs. The judge had recognised that the outcome of the issue as to liability was determinative both of claim and of counterclaim and that the award as he made it was within his discretion.

Judges:

Rix LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 883, [2010] PIQR P1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMedway Oil and Storage Co Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd HL 1929
The court set down the principles to be applied when apportioning costs between a claim and counterclaim. Where both the claim and the counter-claim are dismissed with costs, the amount that the Claimant will recover in defeating the counter-claim . .

Cited by:

CitedHorth v Thompson QBD 6-Jul-2010
After a personal injury claim, the judge had apportioned liability and ordered each side to pay the costs of the other. The case had been allocated to the fast track.
Held: The appeal failed. The existence of the Conditional Fee Agreement did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.374417

Vyner v Waldenberg Brothers Ltd: CA 1946

Vyner was working a circular saw when part of his thumb was cut off. The saw failed in several respects to comply with the Woodworking Machinery Regulations, and in particular the guard was not properly adjusted. The accident happened before the passing of the 1945 Act, and the main defence was contributory negligence.
Held: Scott LJ said: ‘If there is a definite breach of a safety provision imposed on the occupier of a factory, and a workman is injured in a way which could result from the breach, the onus of proof shifts on to the employer to show that the breach was not the cause. We think that that principle lies at the very basis of statutory rules of absolute duty.’

Judges:

Scott LJ

Citations:

[1946] KB 50

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLee v Nursery Furnishings Ltd CA 1945
A Court should not be astute to find against either party, but should apply the ordinary standards. Lord Goddard said: ‘In the first place I think one may say this, that where you find there has been a breach of one of these safety regulations and . .

Cited by:

CriticisedBonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .
CitedWilsher v Essex Area Health Authority HL 24-Jul-1986
A premature baby suffered injury after mistaken treatment by a hospital doctor. He had inserted a monitor into the umbilical vein. The claimant suggested the treatment should have been by a more senior doctor. The hospital appealed a finding that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.272564

Fletcher v The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland: 21 Feb 2003

(Irish Supreme Court)

Citations:

[2003] 1 IR 465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.238197

Hardwick v Hudson and Another: CA 18 May 1999

Where the wife of an injured party had to provide unpaid service to her husband’s business in his absence in order to keep that going, it was not possible to claim for her time as damages, since unlike a wife nursing her husband, the damage was too remote.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Coleman J

Citations:

Gazette 03-Jun-1999, Times 20-May-1999, [1999] PIQR Q202, [1999] 1 WLR 1770, [1999] EWCA Civ 1428

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.146343

Watt v Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company Limited and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd and Energy and Marine (Weirside) Limited: SCS 3 Nov 1998

The pursuer sought reparation against three former shipbuilders. He had developed extensive bilateral pleural plaques and asbestosis.
Held: Lord Gill felt that it was possible to give the proviso a satisfactory meaning, notwithstanding his conclusion that the 1931 Regulations applied only to the asbestos industry: ‘the Regulations related to those processes by which the raw material was treated in the course of its being manufactured into asbestos products of various kinds’

Judges:

Lord Gill

Citations:

[1998] ScotCS 48

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 (1931 No 1140)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

DisapprovedShell Tankers UK Limited v Jeromson; The Cherry Tree Machine Company Limited, Shell Tankers UK Limited v Dawson CA 2-Feb-2001
The claimant’s husband had been employed as an apprentice fitter in a factory which manufactured dry cleaners’ presses. For two years, it was part of his job to mix asbestos flock with water in a bucket and then apply it to the plattens of a press . .
CitedMcDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.163364

Worrall v British Railways Board: CA 29 Apr 1999

The plaintiff alleged that an injury which he has suffered as a result of his employer’s negligence had changed his personality. As a result, he had on two occasions committed sexual assaults on prostitutes, for which offences he had been sentenced to imprisonment for six years. He claimed loss of earnings while in prison and thereafter.
Held: The claim was struck out. Mummery LJ said: ‘It would be inconsistent with his criminal conviction to attribute to the negligent defendant in this action any legal responsibility for the financial consequences of crimes which he has been found guilty of having deliberately committed.’

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1312

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.146227

Ali v Courtaulds Textiles Ltd: CA 26 May 1999

A claimant was not fixed with knowledge of the source of his injury by being referred for medical opinion. He could not be expected to understand the source of this injury without expert assistance, and time did not run until such assistance was obtained.

Judges:

Henry LJ

Citations:

Times 28-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1486, [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Med 301, (2000) 52 BMLR 129

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNash v Eli Lilly and Co CA 1993
The court considered whether a solicitor acting for a potential plaintiff was considered to be an expert for the purposes of the section.
Held: Purchas LJ said: ‘Of course as advice from a solicitor as to the legal consequences of the act or . .

Cited by:

CitedAdams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council HL 17-Jun-2004
A attended the defendant’s schools between 1977 and 1988. He had always experienced difficulties with reading and writing and as an adult found those difficulties to be an impediment in his employment. He believed them to be the cause of the . .
CitedHaward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.77732

Moore v Kirklees Metropolitan Council: CA 30 Apr 1999

The claimant was employed as a dinner lady at a junior school. Whilst supervising playtime, a child jumped on her, causing her injury. The council appealed a finding of negligence. The boy had been recognised as being in need of special management for his behaviour, and had behaved in a similar fashion before. There were steps which could have been taken to reduce the risks, including the issue of earnings, training, and the employment of more staff.
Held: Mere forseeability was insufficient to establish liability. Each such case must turn on its own facts. In this case the finding was correct in law.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Potter

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1326

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSmith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.146241

PQ (A Child) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 24 Jun 2020

Request for approval of settlement of claim

Judges:

Mr Justice Martin Spencer

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1676 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoPQ (A Child : Anonymity) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (Anonymisation) QBD 22-Jun-2020
Liability only trial in which the court is to determine whether or not the defendant NHS Trust is liable to pay the claimant damages for breach of duty arising out of the circumstances of the claimant’s birth . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.652131

PQ (A Child : Anonymity) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (Anonymisation): QBD 22 Jun 2020

Liability only trial in which the court is to determine whether or not the defendant NHS Trust is liable to pay the claimant damages for breach of duty arising out of the circumstances of the claimant’s birth

Judges:

Mr Justice Martin Spencer

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1662 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoPQ (A Child) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust QBD 24-Jun-2020
Request for approval of settlement of claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.652132

Noble v Owens: QBD 11 Mar 2008

The trial in this action is concerned with a number of issues going to the quantum of damages payable to the claimant (‘Mr Noble’) arising out of a road accident caused by the admitted negligence of the defendant.

Judges:

Field J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 359 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.427042

Cobham Hire Services Ltd v Eeles: CA 13 Mar 2009

The court was asked what is the correct approach to the making of an interim payment in a heavy personal injury claim where the damages, when finally assessed, are likely to include one or more periodical payments orders pursuant to section 2 of the Damages Act 1996. The Act, as amended provided for the court to make an award of damages which could include one or more Periodical Payment Orders. This made it necessary to examine what was the correct approach to the making of an interim payment where the damages, when finally assessed, could include such orders.
Smith LJ described the approach which a judge should take when applications are made for an interim payment in a case in which the trial judge may wish to make a periodic payments order: ‘The judge’s first task is to assess the likely amount of the final judgment, leaving out of account the heads of future loss which the trial judge might wish to deal with by PPO. Strictly speaking, the assessment should comprise only special damages to date and damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, with interest on both. However, we consider that the practice of awarding accommodation costs (including future running costs) as a lump sum is sufficiently well established that it will usually be appropriate to include accommodation costs in the expected capital award. The assessment should be carried out on a conservative basis. Save in the circumstances discussed below, the interim payment will be a reasonable proportion of that assessment. A reasonable proportion may well be a high proportion, provided that the assessment has been conservative. The objective is not to keep the claimant out of his money but to avoid any risk of over-payment.
For this part of the process, the judge need have no regard as to what the claimant intends to do with the money. If he is of full age and capacity, he may spend it as he will; if not, expenditure will be controlled by the Court of Protection.
We turn to the circumstances in which the judge will be entitled to include in his assessment of the likely amount of the final judgment additional elements of future loss. That can be done when the judge can confidently predict that the trial judge will wish to award a larger capital sum than that covered by general and special damages, interest and accommodation costs alone. We endorse the approach of Stanley Burnton J in Braithwaite. Before taking such a course, the judge must be satisfied by evidence that there is a real need for the interim payment requested. For example, where the request is for money to buy a house, he must be satisfied that there is a real need for accommodation now (as opposed to after the trial) and that the amount of money requested is reasonable. He does not need to decide whether the particular house proposed is suitable; that is a matter for the Court of Protection. But the judge must not make an interim payment order without first deciding whether expenditure of approximately the amount he proposes to award is reasonably necessary. If the judge is satisfied of that, to a high degree of confidence, then he will be justified in predicting that the trial judge would take that course and he will be justified in assessing the likely amount of the final award at such a level as will permit the making of the necessary interim award.

Judges:

Dyson, Smith, Thomas LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 204, [2009] CP Rep 29, [2009] PIQR P15, [2009] LS Law Medical 274

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Damages Act 1996 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPreston v City Electrical Factors Ltd and Another QBD 13-Nov-2009
The claimant had received andpound;100,000 in interim payments on his personal injury claim, and now sought a further similar sum.
Held: The claim was thought substantial, but the defendants said that any final award would include an . .
CitedBrown ( A Minor) v Emery QBD 4-Mar-2010
The court considered an application for an interim payment to fund the purchase of suitable accommodation in which the child claimant might spend periods of time with her parents and sibling and ultimately reside on discharge, at a cost of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.317974

Day v Harland and Wolff Ltd: 1953

The plaintiff was injured repainting a ship in a dry dock.
Held: The situation was one covered by the regulations. The scaffolding used to support the workers had to be of the standard appropriate to maintain the employees’ safety.

Citations:

[1953] I WLR 906, [1953] 2 All ER 387, [1953] 97 Sol Jo 473

Statutes:

Shipbuilding Regulations 1931

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.237588

Russell Mitchell v Ryan Alasia: 2005

The court considered whether the claimant, whom the Court of Protection had decided was a patient and in respect of whom a Receiver had been appointed, was and would continue to be one. The court concluded that, in the context of pursuing his claim for compensation, he was a patient, but that he would not continue a patient indefinitely and would cease to be one three years after the trial. She awarded a sum in respect of the costs of the receivership likely to be incurred during that period.

Judges:

Cox, J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA v The Archbishop of Birmingham QBD 30-Jun-2005
Assessment of damages following child abuse by Catholic priest.
Held: General damages of andpound;50,000 were in line with Coxon and were approved. A had not been shown to be, and is not, incapable of managing his affairs. The court differed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.228421

Firth v George Ackroyd Junior Ltd: 2000

Citations:

[2000] Lloyds Med Rep 313

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA v The Archbishop of Birmingham QBD 30-Jun-2005
Assessment of damages following child abuse by Catholic priest.
Held: General damages of andpound;50,000 were in line with Coxon and were approved. A had not been shown to be, and is not, incapable of managing his affairs. The court differed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.228418

Fowler v Tierney: 1974

A young woman was injured in a collision with a motor car when she was travelling as a pillion passenger on a motor scooter. She brought an action claiming damages against the driver of the motor scooter. The defender pleaded, inter alia, volenti non fit injuria.
Held: It was proved that the defender evinced an initial reluctance to give the pursuer a lift, but he did inform her that he had only a provisional licence, either by using those actual words or words to equivalent effect, and that something was said by the defender relating to the pursuer taking a risk or to it being her fault if anything happened. The defender’s plea was repelled.

Judges:

Lord Ordinary, Lord Maxwell

Citations:

1974 SLT (Notes) 23

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedMcTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.226227

Wells v Full Moon Events Ltd (T/A Dave Thorpe Honda Off-Road Centre) and Another: QBD 19 May 2020

The claimant alleged negligence in the defendant who had organised an off-road motorcycling event in which he was injured. He hit a stone submerged in a puddle causing the accident.
Held: ‘the Claimant has failed to discharge the burden on him to prove that he struck an object concealed in the water which was large enough to precipitate his fall. Although there is no burden of proof on the Defendant, I find that it is more probable that the Claimant’s fall was precipitated by him striking the rocks on the eastern side of the puddle, due to making an error in the manner in which he negotiated the puddle.’

Judges:

Michael Bowes QC sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1265 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651235

Guidera v NEI Projects (India) Ltd: 17 Nov 1988

The plaintiff was exposed to asbestos in 1952 and 1953 and later diagnosed with asbestosis.
Held: He had suffered no injury by 4th June 1954 because physical injury would not occur for at least 5 (and more likely 10 – 20) years after exposure. Destruction of cells by macrophages or neurophils was not damage or injury for the purpose of creating a cause of action since destruction of cells in this way was a natural incident of daily life. This was so even on the basis that the claimant would, inevitably, suffer from asbestosis once exposure had begun.

Judges:

McCullough J

Citations:

Unreported, 17 November 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Appeal fromGuidera v NEI Projects (India) Ltd CA 30-Jan-1990
The word ‘attributable’ in the Act means ‘capable of being attributed’, rather than ’caused by’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.238331

Latimer v AEC Limited: HL 25 Jun 1953

The Appellant had recovered damages for injuries which he alleged had been the result of a failure on the part of the Respondents in their statutory duty to maintain one of the gangways in their works in an efficient state. He slipped on a factory floor which had become flooded in an unusually heavy rain storm causing a mixture of water and oily coolant, normally confined to a channel, to coat the floor.
Held: The employer was not negligent, because it had done all that could reasonably be expected of it, short of closing the factory, to prevent injury. The risk of injury from the slippery floor was not sufficient to require the Defendants to shut the factory.
Lord Oaksey said: ‘On the question of the construction of section 25(1) of the Factories Act, 1937, I am of the opinion that by virtue of that section and the interpretation section 152, the respondents were bound to maintain the floors and passages in an efficient state, but I do not consider that it was proved that they were not in an efficient state. A floor does not, in my opinion, cease to be in an efficient state because a piece of orange peel or a small pool of some slippery material is on it. Whilst I do not agree that the maintenance of the floors is confined to their construction, I think the obligation to maintain them in an efficient state introduces into what is an absolute duty a question of degree as to what is efficient . . The question then is whether section 25(1) applies to things which are not part of the floor but whose presence on it is a source of danger. If section 25 stood alone I would say that it did not. No doubt the section is one dealing with safety, but, even so, keeping the surface of a floor free from dangerous material does not appear to me to come within the scope of maintaining the floor.’
Lord Tucker said: ‘The learned judge seems to have accepted the reasoning of counsel for the plaintiff to the effect that the floor was slippery, that slipperiness is a potential danger, that the defendants must be taken to have been aware of this, that in the circumstances nothing could have been done to remedy the slipperiness, that the defendants allowed work to proceed, that an accident due to slipperiness occurred, and that the defendants are therefore liable.
This is not the correct approach. The problem is perfectly simple. The only question was: has it been proved that the floor was so slippery that, remedial steps not being possible, a reasonably prudent employer would have closed down the factory rather than allow his employees to run the risks involved in continuing work? The learned judge does not seem to me to have posed this question to himself, nor was there sufficient evidence before him to have justified an affirmative answer.
The absence of any evidence that anyone in the factory during the afternoon or night shift, other than the plaintiff, slipped or experienced any difficulty or that any complaint was made by or on behalf of the workers all points to the conclusion that the danger was in fact not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation placed upon the respondents by the trial judge.’

Judges:

Lord Oaksey, Lord Porter

Citations:

[1953] 2 All ER 449, [1953] UKHL 3, [1953] AC 643

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Factories Act 1937 25(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLewis v Avidan Ltd (T/A High Meadow Nursing Home) CA 13-Apr-2005
A nurse claimed damages after slipping on a patch of water in the nursing home where she worked. The defendant argued that the pipe which had broken was not equipment so as to make it liable.
Held: The nurse’s appeal failed. The mere fact of . .
CitedGoodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
CitedMunro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009
Safety Duty on Employer was not Absolute
The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .
CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
CitedMiller v Jackson CA 6-Apr-1977
The activities of a long established cricket club had been found to be a legal nuisance, because of the number of cricket balls landing in the gardens of neighbouring houses. An injunction had been granted to local householders who complained of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.189994

Watson, Bradford City Association Football Club (1983) Limited v Gray, Huddersfield Town Association Football Club Limited: CA 22 Apr 1999

The first claimant succeeded in claiming damages against the first and second defendants. He had been a professional footballer injured in a negligent tackle by the first defendant. The tackle was outside the range acceptable within the sport. The decision of the judge at first instance had been an assessment of the facts. As such it was not for re-opening by the Court of Appeal.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 341

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.139605

Jenkins v Holt: CA 22 Apr 1999

Where two drivers had collided, and each could have avoided injury, if they had seen the other, it made little sense other than to find equal liability. Bad driving by one did not make him entirely responsible, if each could have avoided a collision.

Citations:

Times 27-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1240

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.146155

Wright v Freeway Haulage Limited: CA 22 Apr 1999

A collision occurred between a heavy lorry and a motor car travelling in the opposite direction: ‘I am not, however, persuaded that the judge was correct to conclude that the speed of this very wide articulated lorry and its load made no causative contribution to the accident. [A finding of excessive speed had been made.] It is a short point. But, in my view, to drive a lorry with a 15 ft 6 ins wide load at or approaching 50 miles per hour on a bend of a single carriageway which was nearly 4 ft narrower than the load was negligent, and the negligence contributed to the accident. Driving more slowly would have enabled Mr Mangan to manoeuvre more carefully and would also have given the oncoming drivers, including but not limited to the plaintiff, a greater opportunity to take any necessary evasive action safely.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1233

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPuffett (A Minor) v Hayfield CA 16-Dec-2005
The defendant appealed from a finding that she had been driving too quickly when a child ran out between parked cars in front of her and was hit. The judge found that she must have been driving at 28mph or more.
Held: ‘I am not prepared to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.146148

Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills: QBD 2 May 2013

The claimant was seriously ill and claimed that this arose from exposure to asbestos fibres working for the defendant many years before. He now sought an extension of time to make the claim.
Held: The court upheld the limitation defences of both defendants and dismissed the action:
i) The claimant did not have actual knowledge of the possible link between his lung cancer and his previous exposure to asbestos until July 2009 when he saw the advertisement. Therefore he commenced proceedings within the requisite three year period after the date of actual knowledge.
ii) The claimant had constructive knowledge under LA section 14 (3) of the possible link in mid-2003. This is because, as a reasonable man, he should by then have asked Dr Prejbisz about the possible causes of his cancer. If the claimant had done so, Dr Prejbisz would have mentioned asbestos exposure as a possible cause.
iii) Therefore under LA section 11 the limitation period expired in mid-2006. The claimant commenced his actions six years after expiry of the limitation period.
iv) Upon application of the criteria set out in LA section 33, it did not appear equitable to disapply the provisions of section 11. Therefore the defendants’ limitation defences succeeded.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1117 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33

Cited by:

Appeal fromCollins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Others CA 23-May-2014
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injury which had been rejected on basis that it was out of time. He had contracted cancer in 2002, but had recovered. He later came to attribute this to exposure to asbestos at work . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491918

McCaul v Elias Wild: 14 Sep 1989

The plaintiff who had suffered pleural thickening from inhalation of asbestos fibres in 1943 – 1950 suffered no actionable injury until about 1985, when he first experienced breathlessness.

Judges:

McNeill J

Citations:

Unreported, 14 September 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedKeenen v Miller Insulation and Engineering Ltd 8-Dec-1987
The claimant’s cause of action for lung fibrosis did not arise at the time he was exposed to asbestos between August 1952 and May 1953 because at that stage he had not suffered physical injury by May 1953. Basing himself on the evidence of Dr Rudd . .

Cited by:

CitedBolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.238332

Redpath v Belfast and County Down Railway: CANI 1947

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. The defendant company sought to bring into account sums received by the plaintiff from a distress fund to which members of the public had contributed. Plaintiff’s counsel were said to having submitted: ‘that it would be startling to the subscribers to that fund if they were to be told that their contributions were really made in ease and for the benefit of the negligent railway company. To this last submission I would only add that if the proposition contended for by the defendants is sound the inevitable consequence in the case of future disasters of a similar character would be that the springs of private charity would be found to be largely if not entirely dried up.’
Held: Gifts made by others to relieve the distress of the plaintiff were not to reduce the damages payable by the defendant.

Judges:

Andrews CJ

Citations:

[1947] NI 167

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

ApprovedParry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
ApprovedPirelli General Plc and others v Gaca CA 26-Mar-2004
The claimant was awarded damages from his employers, who claimed that the benefits received by the claimant from an insurance policy to which the defendants had contributed should be set off against the claim.
Held: McCamley was no longer good . .
CitedLongden v British Coal Corporation HL 13-Mar-1997
The plaintiff was injured whilst at work in one of the defendant’s collieries. The House considered the deductibility from damages awarded for personal injury of a collateral benefit.
Held: The issue of deductibility where the claim is for . .
CitedParry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.195723

Shapland v Palmer: CA 23 Mar 1999

The plaintiff’s car was struck by a company car driven by the defendant in the course of her employment and she sought damages. Her action, against the employer, was struck out as late under the 1980 Act. She then commenced an action against the driver defendant.
Held: The plaintiff was allowed to seek the exercise of the court’s discretion. Where a plaintiff in a personal injury action issues against one party, but that claim is dismissed, the court retains the discretion to allow a subsequent claim on similar facts against a different party under the section.
Simon Brown LJ discussed the Walkley case: ‘Lord Wilberforce was there [p. 609 cited above] saying that as a matter of construction the particular prejudice to which the section 33 discretion is directed is that occasioned by the plaintiff not having issued his proceedings within the primary three-year limitation period. Once he has issued his proceedings within that period, then, for whatever reason they have ceased to exist – whether through failure to serve, strike out for want of prosecution, or discontinuance – section 33 simply has no application.
Although Lord Wilberforce observes that any prejudice resulting from the ultimate ineffectiveness of the first proceedings is due rather to the plaintiff’s inaction than to the act (i.e. the proceedings not having being issued in time), this observation seems to me strictly outside the ratio. It is, after all, plain that the section 33 discretion arises notwithstanding a plaintiff’s solicitors’ perhaps far greater negligence in failing ever to have issued proceedings within the primary limitation period in the first place. Indeed, as Lord Diplock expressly recognised in Thompson v Brown [1981] 1 W.L.R. 744, 752 that is an undoubted anomaly arising from the Walkley principle.
I accordingly understand the Walkley principle to exclude from section 33 only actions which involve the same defendant and the same cause of action as was the subject of the earlier, timeous proceedings.’ and ‘The general tendency of those cases, I have no doubt, is to support the plaintiff’s argument. In the first place, they suggest a marked unwillingness on the Court’s part to apply the Walkley case . . . unless it is plainly indistinguishable . . . ‘ and
‘By the same token that the Walkley principle itself rests upon a narrow and somewhat technical construction of section 33, so too it is, in my judgment, possible to escape it on just such grounds. That, moreover, is particularly appropriate given the undoubted anomalies that in any event arise from the application of the principle – most notably, as already pointed out, its failure to impact on cases of perhaps greater negligence where no writ was ever issued in the first place. I would accordingly rule that the section 33 discretion arises in all cases save those which fall four-square within the Walkley principle.’

Judges:

Simon Brown, Waller and Clarke LJJ

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1061, [1999] 1 WLR 2068, [1999] PIQR P249

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWalkley v Precision Forgings Ltd HL 1979
The plaintiff tried to bring a second action in respect of an industrial injury claim outside the limitation period so as to overcome the likelihood that his first action, although timeous, would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Held: He . .
CitedForward v Hendricks CA 6-Dec-1996
. .
CitedDeerness v John R Keeble and Son (Brantham) Ltd HL 1983
The plaintiff suffered very serious injuries as a passenger in a car, and a writ was issued within the three-year period against the driver and the owner of the car whose insurers made a substantial interim payment. The writ was not served, nor . .

Cited by:

CitedPiggott v Aulton (Deceased) CA 29-Jan-2003
The claimant had issued proceedings against the deceased after his death, but before a personal representative had been appointed. They later discontinued and re-issued against the person appointed by the court to defend the action. The defendant . .
CitedBarry Young (Deceased) v Western Power Distribution (South West) Plc CA 18-Jul-2003
The deceased had begun an action on becoming ill after exposure to asbestos by the defendant. He withdrew his action after receiving expert evidence that his illness was unrelated. A post-mortem examination showed this evidence to be mistaken. His . .
CitedJacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought damages against the defendant for personal injury from his alleged negligence. Her action was struck out and she recommenced the action. The defendant pleaded that she was out of time. The claimant said that the first action . .
CitedHorton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145976

Plumb v Ayres and Ryford Limited: CA 17 Mar 1999

Appeals in personal injury cases against a judge’s finding on liability are very unlikely to succeed, and in future, leave to appeal should only be given where there is a clear evidence that the judge had made an error of principle. However, Brook LJ said, exceptional circumstances may arise where the judge erred in principle, misapprehended the facts or he is clearly shown to have been wrong.

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

Times 11-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWells v Mutchmeats Ltd and Another CA 28-Feb-2006
. .
CitedWhitehead v Bruce and Others CA 21-Mar-2013
The three defendants each appealed against apportionment of liability for serious personal injuries incurred in a road traffic accident. The first defendant a motor cycle driver, with the claimant his pillion passenger took suddent action to evade a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145925

Derry v Ministry of Defence: CA 18 Mar 1999

Where an army doctor was accused of failing to diagnose a serviceman’s ocular cancer, the negligence which caused the consequent injury was caused by the delay in a correct diagnosis, and the treatment fell within the scope of Crown Immunity.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-1999, Gazette 21-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1016, [1999] PIQR P204

Statutes:

Crown Proceedings Act 1947 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromDerry v Ministry of Defence QBD 8-Jun-1998
A military doctor has exemption under Crown Immunity, from liability from his failure to diagnose and treat ocular cancer properly, and the exemption applied even though the medical condition pre-existed the treatment. The cause of action lay in the . .

Cited by:

CitedMatthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury, Armed Forces

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145931

Dale v Michelin Tyre Plc: CA 3 Mar 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 886

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCoad v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority CA 17-Jul-1996
A nurse suffered a back injury in 1983 in the course of her employment. She left the employment of the health authority in either 1990 or 1991. The judge had accepted her evidence that she did not know that she had a right of action against her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145801

Myers v Dortex International Ltd, Axa Insurance Plc: CA 18 Feb 1999

Where a defendant claimed for damages following two accidents and the second insurers wished to apportion the damages, it was wrong to join the first since this faced the plaintiff with two causation defences. The judges decision should allow explanation.

Citations:

Times 18-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 813

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145728

Chalk v Devizes Reclamation Company Limited: CA 24 Feb 1999

Where a task required common-sense, and no obvious instructions were capable of avoiding a danger, an employer was not required to produce instruction and training. The judge erred in finding liability without finding what would have helped.

Judges:

Sir Stephen Brown Lord Justice Swinton Thomas

Citations:

Times 02-Apr-1999, Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 849

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145764

TD v First-Tier Tribunal and CICA (CIC): UTAA 21 Oct 2019

Criminal Injuries Compensation – The First-tier Tribunal’s decision to strike out an appeal for non-compliance with directions was made in ignorance of the fact that there had been partial compliance. The Upper Tribunal did not remake the strike out decision or remit it to the First-tier Tribunal. The FTT should have considered an application for reinstatement which was likely to have been successful. In the light of that and the delay which had occurred, the fair way of proceeding was for the FTT to progress and determine the appeal.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 322 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651665