Niraja Padmalata Lal v Craig Reeder
[2023] EWHC 1437 (KB)
Wayne Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Limited
28 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2227 (KB)
High Court
A worker sued his employer for asthma worsened by inhaling chemicals at work. The judge awarded him money, and the employer appealed. The appeal court agreed with the judge's decision on the amount of money and how the case was managed, saying the judge did a fair job despite some minor errors in procedure.
Key Facts
- •Wayne Allard (Claimant/Respondent) sued Govia Thameslink Railway Limited (Defendant/Appellant) for personal injuries due to negligence.
- •Allard inhaled noxious chemicals (dichloromethane) at work, causing alleged permanent exacerbation of pre-existing asthma.
- •Defendant admitted liability before trial, which focused on causation and quantum.
- •Recorder Cohen awarded Allard £27,000 general damages and ordered further evidence on special damages.
- •Defendant appealed on grounds of incorrect general damages quantum and improper handling of special damages.
- •The appeal concerned the judge's assessment of quantum and his decision to allow further evidence on special damages.
Legal Principles
Appellate courts should not interfere with quantum awards unless the judge acted on a wrong principle of law, misapprehended the facts, or the amount was wholly erroneous.
Santos v Eaton Square Garage Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 225
Appellate courts should not interfere with findings of fact by trial judges unless compelled to do so, this applies to findings of primary fact, evaluation of facts and inferences drawn from them.
Fage UK Limited and another v Chabani Limited and another [2014] EWCA Civ 5
A statement of truth is sufficient verification of truth in a Schedule of Loss unless defects exist in form or veracity is challenged.
CPR r 22.1 and Practice Direction
Case management decisions by trial judges should be supported unless the judge failed to consider relevant matters, considered irrelevant factors, or reached a plainly irrational decision.
Re TG (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 5 and Re B (A Child) [2013] 1 WLR 1911
A Smith v Manchester award is for contingent future loss of earnings due to reduced job opportunities from injury.
Palmer v Seferif Mantas and Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co. Ltd [2022] EWHC 90 (QB)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's findings on fact were supported by evidence and his application of the Judicial College Guidelines was not plainly erroneous. The judge's case management decision regarding special damages, while arguably containing minor errors, was within his discretion and aimed at achieving justice.
Ground 1 (quantum of general damages) rejected.
The judge's assessment of the extent of the claimant's injury was supported by the evidence, including the claimant's testimony and expert medical opinion. While the Defendant argued the judge misapprehended the facts, the Court of Appeal found the judge’s interpretation of the evidence reasonable.
Ground 2 (handling of special damages) rejected.
The judge's decision to allow further evidence on special damages, while not strictly necessary, was a case management decision within his discretion, given the unusual circumstances of the case and the Defendant's conduct.