Wayne Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Limited
[2024] EWHC 2227 (KB)
Jason Fleming v Zurich Insurance PLC
28 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1417
Court of Appeal
A man's car accident injury claim started small, but later medical reports showed much worse injuries. He tried to increase his claim close to trial, but a judge said no. A higher court reversed this decision, saying the man wasn't to blame for the delay in getting the later medical reports, and the trial date would have been missed anyway. The higher court let him increase his claim.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Jason Fleming (Claimant) appealed a case management decision refusing to increase the value of his personal injury claim.
- •The initial claim was for £10,000 for a seemingly minor whiplash injury.
- •The Claimant, with learning difficulties, largely represented himself with a McKenzie friend.
- •Subsequent medical reports revealed a more severe and permanent injury, necessitating a claim increase to almost £500,000.
- •The application to increase the claim value was made shortly before trial.
- •The Defendant did not contest the medical evidence supporting the increased claim value but argued the lateness of the application.
- •The lower courts dismissed the appeal.
- •The Court of Appeal considered whether the lower court properly exercised its discretion.
Legal Principles
Appellate courts should not overturn robust case management decisions lightly unless the judge below erred by considering irrelevant factors, ignoring relevant factors, or reaching an irrational decision.
Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1559 at [27] and [28]
Litigants in person are bound by court rules.
Not explicitly cited, but implied throughout the judgment.
Late amendments are subject to scrutiny, considering prejudice to the other party.
Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm) at [38]
CPR 16.3(7) does not circumvent the need to plead all heads of loss; it allows for judgment exceeding the claim form's stated value if justified by evidence.
CPR 16.3(7)
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
The lower court failed to adequately consider the significant change in the medical evidence, the unavoidable delay in obtaining that evidence, and the fact that the trial date would have been lost regardless of the timing of the application to increase the claim value.
The application to increase the value of the claim was granted.
The Claimant should not be unfairly limited to a lower claim value due to delays in obtaining crucial medical evidence for which he was not responsible. The prejudice to the Defendant, while regrettable, is inevitable given the changed circumstances.