The claimant bought an Audi car from new. He sought to reject it, but now appealed a finding that there was nothing wrong with it. He had said that it pulled to the left. The defendant’s tests showed no such tendency. His own independent test supported his assertion, saying it was uncharacteristic and unacceptable. The defendant said it drifted only with the camber.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge made conflicting assertions about the car’s behaviour, but he had been entitled to find, as he did, that the appellant had not shown that the rear wheel alignment was probably out of specification at the time of rejection. The court deprecated the practice of parties writing to the judge requesting him to amend significant points in a draft judgment. The court also noted also that the parties had spent some andpound;100,000 disputing a claim worth about andpound;6,000, and ‘regarded them, one or other, if not both, of them, as ‘completely cuckoo’ to have engaged in such expensive litigation with so little at stake.’
Where the judge sent out a draft of his proposed judgment it was inappropriate for the parties to seek to re-argue their case in answer.
Ward LJ, Arden LJ, Smith LJ
 EWCA Civ 1002,  1 All ER 1156,  1 WLR 1589,  1 FLR 1294, (2007) 151 SJLB 1364
Sale of Goods Act 1979 49
England and Wales
Cited – Sanderson v Hull CA 5-Nov-2008
Insufficient proof of cause of infection
The claimant worked as a turkey plucker. She caught an infection (campylobacter enteritis) at work, and the employer now appealed against a finding of liability. The employer said that the only necessary protection was regular washing of hands. The . .
Cited – Sheikh and Another v Dogan and Others ChD 17-Nov-2009
The judge had reserved his judgment, but had since received further voluminous representations from a party.
Held: None of the matters raised suggested a proper reason for exercising the jurisdiction given by In re Barrell. The claimant was . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2021; Ref: scu.259915