Boyle v Ford Motor Company Ltd ; Melia v Same ; Porter v Same ; Wallace v Same
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STOCKER,LORD JUSTICE FARQUHARSON |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 1992 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1992] EWCA Civ J0304-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 92/0154 |
| Date | 04 March 1992 |
[1992] EWCA Civ J0304-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT
(MR. DISTRICT JUDGE WOLFSON)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Donaldson)
Lord Justice Stocker
Lord Justice Farquharson
92/0154
MR. R. J. D. LIVESEY Q.C. and MR. C. S. FEENY (instructed by Messrs. Hill Dickinson Davis Campbell, Liverpool) appeared for the Defendants (Appellants).
This is an unusual, but not unprecedented, application for leave to appeal in which all the parties, whether plaintiffs or defendants, are unanimous in their wish to reverse the judge's judgment. It is not, however, a case in which appeals can be allowed by consent without a hearing. This can often be done where the parties are all of full age and capacity and there is a compromise of the appeal. That is not this case. The parties are in dispute as to all the issues in the action. They are agreed that these disputes must be resolved by court hearings—but not yet. The Liverpool County Court, in the form of District Judge Wolfson and, on appeal from him, His Honour Judge Lachs, has ruled that they must be heard during the week beginning 9th March 1992 or, in the case of the claim by Mr. Melia, in the week beginning 20th April 1992. The application is that of the defendants. It was originally supported by the plaintiffs and, notwithstanding a last minute change in circumstances, is not opposed by them.
In recent years it has become apparent that, if "the law's delays" were to be reduced, many initiatives had to be taken. Amongst these was a degree of "case management" by the courts themselves. This was, indeed, one of the principal recommendations of the Civil Justice Review Body which reported in June 1988. The Liverpool County Court is one of the busiest in the country. It was in the van in seeking to give effect to the recommendation by a local practice direction. One of the purposes was to ensure that immediately upon the issue of proceedings the parties had a clear time table including, and leading up to, a date for trial to which they could work in preparing their cases, thus avoiding the need for seeking postponements. This was known as the "deadline listing system". Another was to achieve a continuous hearing of cases without any adjournment, which could only be achieved if the court could know well in advance when cases would be ready for hearing and how long they were likely to last. Yet another was to ensure that the particulars of claim and the defence included all allegations of fact relevant to a particular type of claim, thus obviating the expense and waste of time involved in amendments or applications for further and better particulars.
In these cases all four plaintiffs seek damages from the Ford Motor Company Limited for industrial deafness alleged to have been caused by and in the course of their employment. The current local practice direction which came into force in November 1991, superseding one published in November 1988, makes special provision for such cases. So far as is material it is in the following terms:
"Practitioners will recall that Industrial Deafness Claims were removed from the deadline listing system in February 1989. It was recognised that such claims required directions different to those applicable to personal injury claims generally and also required longer time limits for the various stages of the proceedings and for the date of the trial itself.
It has now been decided to issue a local Practice Direction applicable to Industrial Deafness Claims in the Liverpool County Court. As you will see the Practice Direction lays down a procedure within the framework of the County Court Rules with which parties will be expected to comply and which will bring them within a deadline listing system of their own.
The main features of this procedure are:-
(i) The need to identify such claims so that they are easily recognisable as such by the court staff.
(ii) Both the Particulars of Claims and the Defence will be required to contain information designed to obviate or reduce the need for further and better particulars, and/or Interrogatories.
(iii) Provisions as the exchange of expert evidence.
(iv) The application of a deadline listing system. On issue of proceedings the case will be allocated a hearing week which will be the next available week between 70 and 75 weeks from the date of issue of proceedings.
The Practice direction applies to claims brought in the Liverpool County Court. It is anticipated that virtually all, if not all, claims will continue to be brought to the County Court. If such a claim is brought in the High Court and then transferred to the County Court a pre-trial review date will be fixed as soon as possible and that thereafter automatic directions (mutatis mutandis) shall apply to that claim.
It is recognised that the number of Industrial Deafness Claims in this Court and the complexity of the issues usually raised in such claims represent a considerable problem for practitioners and for the Court. The aim of these Directions is to help to alleviate the problem. It is also hoped that co-operation between practitioners, and between practitioners and the Court, will lead to a smoother, cheaper and quicker resolution of these claims to the benefit of all concerned."
The relevant chronology of each case I can take from the judge's judgment. It is as follows:
"A. BOYLE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
(i) Particulars of Claim 31st May 1990
(ii) Defence 27th June 1990
(iii) Fixed for week beginning 21st October 1991
(iv) By letter of 16th August 1991 consent request to take case out of that week and 'refix next available date after 2nd March 1992'.
(v) Listed for hearing week beginning 9th March 1992.
(vi) Application to take out and relist first available date after 1st September 1992.
B. MELIA V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
(i) Particulars of claim 16th March 1990
(ii) Defence 12th April 1990
(iii) Further and Better Particulars and Interrogatories June 1990
(iv) Fixed for week beginning 30th September 1991
(v) Application to take out old relist 'first date after 1st November 1991' granted: relisted 7th November 1991 and then relisted week beginning 20th April 1992.
(vi) Application to list first available date after 2nd November 1992.
C. PORTER V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
(i) Particulars of Claim 14th February 1990
(ii) Defence 23rd March 1990
(iii) Further and Better Particulars 10th May 1990
(iv) Listed for week beginning 9th September 1991
(v) At request of parties to take all and relist 'first available date after 2nd March 1992', relisted week beginning 9th March 1992.
(vi) Application to remove from list and relist after 5th October 1992.
D. WALLACE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
(i) Particulars of Claim 12th June 1990
(ii) Defence 10th July 1990
(iii) Hearing week beginning 21st October 1991
(iv) At request of parties relisted week beginning 9th March 1992
(v) Application to list first date after 5th October 1992"
The essential problem is that there are too many industrial deafness cases chasing too few experts. The matter was put this way in an affidavit by Mr. Paul Large, solicitor for the defendants, which is not challenged:
"A. These 4 cases are all claims made in respect of noise induced deafness by Plaintiffs who have worked at the Defendants at Halewood, Merseyside. This factory opened in 1963 and has employed many thousand people. In recent years, there have been a considerable number of claims for noise induced deafness by employees and ex-employees of the Defendants. The best estimation available to me is that there have been some 9,000 claims intimated against Fords in respect of noise induced deafness at their Halewood Plant. Of these some 4,000 to 5,000 have been litigated, I estimate some 2,500 claims are outstanding. Although some of these claims were intimated in the early part of the 1980's, the vast majority of the claims have been made in the last 5 years.
B. In some of the cases that have been pursued, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has worked in an area where he or she would admittedly have been exposed to excessive levels of noise, for example a Press Shop worker. In these cases, the Defendants have in effect conceded noise exposure and unless there was some issue revealed as to causation or disability on the basis of medical evidence, the cases have settled or proceeded on quantum only.
C. However, in a significant proportion of cases, it is not conceded by the Defendants that the Plaintiff has been exposed to excessive noise. These 4 cases are all within this category. In these circumstances, it is necessary for both parties to obtain expert engineering evidence as to the particular Plaintiff's noise exposure.
D. Such engineering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panton (Donald), Janet Panton, Jeffrey Panton and DOJAP Investments Ltd v Financial Institutions Services Ltd
...to present a partially prepared case, the delay is unavoidable and an adjournment ought to be granted (Boyle v. Ford Motor Co Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 476). See also Ntukidem et at v. Oko etal, supra, relied upon by learned Queen's Counsel for the appellants where it was held that the absence of c......
-
Charmaine Bowen v Island Victoria Bank Ltd and Others
...file the report could occur. The court is empowered by rule 26.1(2)(d) of the CPR to grant an adjournment. In Boyle v Ford Motors Co Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 476, which related to the adjournment of a trial date and not an application to strike out the claim for failure to comply with a court order......
-
Chen Chun Kang v Zhao Meirong
...1 WLR 2380 (refd) Bank Austria Creditanstalt AGv Go Dante Yap [2007] 4 SLR (R) 667; [2007] 4 SLR 667 (refd) Boyle v Ford Motor Co Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 476; [1992] 2 All ER 228 (refd) Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council [1903] 1 KB 547 (refd) Dick v Piller [1943] KB 497; [1943] 1 All ER 6......
-
Chen Chun Kang v Zhao Meirong
...1 SLR(R) 675; Tan Pak v Cham Boon San and other actions [1992] 2 MLJ 271). The English Court of Appeal in Boyle v Ford Motor Co Ltd [1992] 2 All ER 228 (“Boyle”) gave some guidance as to the appropriate balance to be struck. Lord Donaldson MR affirmed that the court should exercise rigorous......