Lea Jennings v Otis Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2039 (KB)
Matthew Walker v Mersey Care NHS Foundation
22 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 119 (KB)
High Court
A man sued his employer after getting hurt playing football at work. The employer changed their story at the last minute, and the judge let them. The man appealed, but the higher court said the judge was allowed to let the employer change their story and the judge's decision was fair based on the evidence.
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.