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 crash with vehicles belonging to the other two defendants, one broken down and parked and one overtaking.
Held: Interfering with a judge’s assessment of the apportionment of damages should be done only in exceptional circumstances, but ‘ the judge below has mischaracterised the contribution of the Second Defendant in this case. I do not, with all respect to the judge, think that it can properly be described as relatively low. She was, albeit through no fault of her own, forced to overtake and move into the opposite carriage way at a point where she necessarily posed a potential danger to oncoming traffic. It was highly incumbent upon her in those circumstances to return to her own lane with all due despatch and she failed to do that. Instead she undertook the manoeuvre in a most lackadaisical manner and even failed to return to her side of the road when she could and should have done so. ‘ The awards were adjusted accordingly.
Judges:
Lord Dyson MR, Elias, Patten LJJ
Citations:
[2013] EWCA Civ 229
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Wells v Mutchmeats Ltd and Another CA 28-Feb-2006
. .
Cited – British Fame v MacGregor (‘The MacGregor’) HL 1947
Two ships had collided. One party sought to appeal the apportionment of damages.
Held: The House considered the reluctance of an appellate court to interefere with an apportionment of damages applied by the court at first instance: ‘It seems . .
Cited – Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark CA 28-May-2002
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Manning v Stylianou CA 26-Oct-2006
Where an appeal is against a judge’s evaluation of the facts, the Court of Appeal should consider the evaluation in the same way it would approach an appeal against the exercise of discretion. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Negligence
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471932