The defendant appealed against the award of damages after being found liable for injuries caused in a road traffic accident. They disputed whether the injuries now complained of were the result of the accident.
Held: the appeal succeed and the case remitted to be reheard. The judge had ‘accepted Mr. Goodman’s assertion that he had experienced knee and back pain immediately following the accident without testing it against the medical records and other documents (including the email) which tended to contradict it. She appears to have placed some reliance on the fact that Mr. Goodman obtained an automatic car as a replacement immediately following the accident, but, given that he must have been shaken up by what had happened, that may not take the matter very far. One is left with the clear impression that she was swayed by Mr. Goodman’s performance in the witness box into disregarding the important documentary evidence bearing on what had become the central question in the case. It may have been open to her to prefer what he had said in the witness box, but if she was minded to do so it was incumbent on her to deal with the documentary evidence and explain why Mr. Goodman’s oral evidence was to be preferred. ‘
Judges:
Sir John Thomas P, Moore-Bick, Rimer LJJ
Citations:
[2013] EWCA Civ 153
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (‘The Ocean Frost’) CA 1985
Proof of corruption not needed for bribe
In establishing that money was paid as an improper inducement or bribe, proof of corruptness or a corrupt motive was unnecessary.
When a court looks at a decision of a judge at first instance, the court stressed the need to look at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471329