Peter John MANTELL v LADBROKES Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWCA Civ 108 |
| Date | 04 February 2003 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B3/2002/2063 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 108
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM DARTFORD COUNTY COURT
(HHJ RUSSELL-VICK QC)
Lord Justice Simon Brown
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division)
B3/2002/2063
The Applicant appeared on his own behalf
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
This is the claimant's application for permission to appeal against the order of Judge Russell-Vick QC, sitting in the Dartford County Court on 23 September 2002, giving judgment for the applicant for damages and interest totalling £3,382.25 and his costs to 18 March 2002. The judge ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs after that date. 18 March 2002 was the date three weeks after a second payment into court which the respondents made under CPR Part 36 which took its total offer up from £2,250 (the initial payment into court on 12 October 2001) to £7,500, substantially more than the sum ultimately recovered. In September 2002, I may note, a third payment in was made which increased the offer to £12,000 but that is immaterial and in any event was made too late.
The applicant had been a very frequent and active sportsman. His claim arose out of an accident he had suffered at a sports centre owned or managed by the respondent on 9 December 1997 when he was 32 years of age. He was playing five-a-side football and he slipped on water, fell over and injured his back. The respondent initially denied liability as well as putting quantum at issue, but on 23 August 2002 it admitted liability and from that point on the litigation continued solely on the question of quantum. That was the issue before the judge on 23 September 2002.
Both sides instructed medical experts and their conclusions, as is generally the case, differed as to the extent and effect of the applicant's injuries. They agreed that he suffered a back injury but no demonstrable fracture or dislocation, but they also agreed that he was already suffering at the time of the accident from pre-existing degenerative changes in his back which would have stopped him playing sports at some date in the future. The applicant's expert, Mr Stock, thought that but for the accident the pain in the back would not have become a problem for some five to ten years; the respondent's expert, Mr Hay, thought that in the light of the applicant's age, build and degenerative condition he would have experienced back pain very much earlier than that. He thought that the temporary aggravating effect of the accident ended after about three months. Both medical experts gave oral evidence below and were cross-examined.
The applicant represented himself at the hearing, as he has done on this application before me. I would, if I may, commend him for the civility and clarity of his representations. At the hearing he had planned to call various lay witnesses and had prepared and submitted witness statements of what they proposed to say. The judge read those statements and can be seen at page 35 of the transcript to have observed that he had read them, that there was no challenge to anything they said and that they essentially endorsed what the applicant himself had already said in his own evidence.
Let me now turn to the judgment. The judge in the usual way set out the essential nature of the claim. Then he went on to summarise the evidence of the rival experts, stating where they agreed and disagreed. Ultimately, for the reasons he gave, he came to prefer Mr Hay's evidence for the respondent. As to that critical finding, I should, I think, read the essential passage from the judgment at page 45H to 47D:
"Mr Stock was, as I have said, much of the same view as to the degenerative changes. Where they differed in their evidence and their opinion was that Mr Hay took the view that the incident, which occurred in the accident in December of 1997, would in fact have cleared up, and did in fact clear up, without the claimant in fact having to seek any intervention, either by his general practitioner or any consultant, or indeed anyone with orthopaedic skills, and he took the view that the pain would have been quite severe probably for the first few days but within a matter of probably three months the matter could have cleared up. But the fact was he said this was a claimant with a back which had degenerative changes and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Celltech R&D Ltd and MedImmune Inc.
...that Synagis was covered respectively by the US and German versions of one of the licensed patents called "Adair 1." This Court held ( 2003 EWCA Civ 108) that the US version of Adair 1 did not cover Synagis. Laddie J has held (2004 HC 1124 (Patents)) that the German version of Adair 1 does ......