Matthew Walker v Mersey Care NHS Foundation
[2024] EWHC 119 (KB)
Lea Jennings v Otis Limited & Anor
4 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2039 (KB)
High Court
A man sued his employer after losing his arm in a lift accident. The judge ordered him to give more details of what happened before the case went further. The man appealed, but the higher court said the judge was right. They also moved the case to where the accident happened, to save time and money.
Key Facts
- •Lea Jennings (Claimant/Appellant), an experienced lift engineer, suffered a traumatic arm amputation while inspecting lift machinery on 16 October 2018.
- •The Claimant's case is that inadequate guarding caused the accident when he stumbled.
- •The Respondents argue the accident was caused by the Claimant deliberately placing his arm in the machinery.
- •The claim was issued in London, despite the accident occurring in Bristol.
- •Master Thornett ordered the Claimant to serve a further reply to a Part 18 request and unilaterally disclose his witness statements.
- •The Claimant appealed this case management order.
Legal Principles
A Master has wide discretion in case management.
Inherent powers of the court
The overriding objective is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
CPR 1.1
An appeal against a case management decision will only succeed if the decision was 'plainly wrong'.
Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management (No.2) [2014] 1 WLR 4495
When considering permission to appeal a case management decision, the court considers significance, procedural consequences, and convenience of determining the issue at trial.
CPR PD 52A, paragraph 4.6
A claimant must make their case plain and clear.
The court may direct single joint expert evidence.
CPR 35.7
Cases should be issued in the most appropriate location considering factors such as where the accident occurred and the location of parties and witnesses.
Civil Courts Structure Review; Interim (December 2015) and Final report (July 2016)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Master acted within his discretion to ensure clarity of the Claimant's case before further steps were taken. The order for unilateral disclosure was justified given the Claimant was the only witness and it was a cost-effective way to clarify the facts.
The claim was transferred to the Bristol District Registry.
Issuing the claim in London was deemed inappropriate given the accident's location and the parties' locations. Transferring to Bristol would improve case management and reduce costs and delays.