Matthew Walker v Mersey Care NHS Foundation
[2024] EWHC 119 (KB)
Emilia Idziak v Merlin Entertainments PLC
2 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1351 (KB)
High Court
A whiplash case had a confusing ruling on changing the legal arguments. A higher court said the lower court's reasoning wasn't clear enough, so they sent the case back for a second look. This means the trial is delayed.
Key Facts
- •Claim for damages for whiplash injuries sustained on a fairground ride in August 2016.
- •Initial trial resulted in judgment for the Claimant, appealed by the Defendant.
- •Appeal successful, leading to a retrial ordered by Jacobs J due to failures of reasoning in the initial trial judgment.
- •Claimant applied to amend pleadings, Defendant cross-applied to amend defence.
- •HHJ Maloney permitted some amendments but refused others.
- •Both parties appealed HHJ Maloney's decision.
- •The appeals were heard together by Mrs Justice Collins Rice.
Legal Principles
Permission to appeal will not be granted unless the appeal would have a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason.
CPR 52.6
An appeal court will allow an appeal only if the decision of the lower court was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity.
CPR 52.21
A judge's discretion in relation to case management issues is very broad.
Judge's own statement, implicitly supported by the court
Relevant legal tests for late amendments are set out in Pearce v. East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1504 (QB).
Pearce v. East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1504 (QB)
Outcomes
Both appeals (Claimant's and Defendant's) were allowed.
HHJ Maloney's judgment was insufficiently reasoned, making it impossible to understand why certain amendments were permitted while others were refused. The judge did not properly apply the legal tests for late amendments, and the decision lacked internal logic.
HHJ Maloney's judgment and order were set aside in their entirety insofar as they related to the amendment to the particulars of claim.
The judgment failed for want of reasoning and did not explain the differential treatment of the amendments.
The Claimant's application for permission to amend her pleadings was remitted to the County Court for redetermination.
The court needed to ensure that no issues were missed, and a fresh consideration of the application was required.
The trial date was vacated.
The case was not trial-ready due to the remitted application.
Costs of the appeals were reserved to the trial judge.
Conduct issues and the litigation history needed to be considered in the round, and it was in the interests of justice for the parties to attempt to compromise.