Key Facts
- •Mr. Walker, a nursing assistant, suffered a fractured radius during a staff-patient 'soft touch' football game.
- •Mr. Walker claimed Mersey Care NHS Trust was vicariously liable for Mr. Callaghan's actions, alleging a breach of 'soft touch' football rules.
- •Mersey amended its defence on the morning of trial, denying the existence of specific 'soft touch' rules.
- •The Recorder allowed the amendment and dismissed Mr. Walker's claim.
- •Mr. Walker appealed both the case management decision (allowing the amendment) and the main judgment (dismissing the claim).
Legal Principles
Appeals from case management decisions have a high threshold; the appellate court should not 'second guess' the judge unless the decision is plainly wrong.
Royal & Sun Alliance PLC v T & N [2002] EWCA Civ 1964, Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd v Miles Smith Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1258
Appeals against findings of fact succeed only in limited circumstances, such as material error of law, lack of evidentiary basis, or demonstrable misunderstanding of evidence.
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Clin [2021] EWCA Civ 136, Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
In sporting contests, liability requires conduct characterized as negligent, not mere errors of judgment or lapses of attention.
Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald [2001] EWCA Civ 1054
Whether to allow an amendment is a matter of the court's discretion, balancing injustice to the applicant if refused against injustice to the opponent if permitted; very late amendments require a strong justification.
Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm), Toucan Energy Holdings Ltd & Or v Wirsol Energy Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 896, CIP Properties (APT) v Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited [2015] EWHC 1345, Andrew Brown & Ors v Innovatorone [2011] EWHC 3221 (Comm)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Recorder's decision to allow the amendment was within his discretion; no prejudice to the claimant was found, and the trial could proceed. The main judgment's factual findings were not irrational.