Sayed Hussein v William Hill Group
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Civ 899 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B3/2004/0423 |
| Date | 17 June 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 899
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MRS JUSTICE HALLETT DBE)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Mummery
B3/2004/0423
THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN PERSON
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
Thursday, 17th June 2004
This is an application for permission to appeal. The application is made by Mr Hussein in person. He also seeks an order staying the enforcement of the costs order made against him below pending the hearing of any appeal, if permission is granted.
The decision which he wishes to appeal is one which resulted in an order of Hallett J on 18th February 2004. Following a trial without a jury in the Queens Bench Division it was ordered that judgment be entered for Mr Hussein, who was the claimant, in the sum of £50. He was ordered to pay the costs of the defendants, William Hill Group, of the whole of the action on an indemnity basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
Mr Hussein applied for permission to appeal. That was refused, so he makes an application to this court for permission. As Mr Hussein appreciates, because he made particular reference to it in his closing remarks, permission is required and the court can only grant permission if it is satisfied that there is a real prospect of the appeal succeeding. There is no point in appeals proceeding to a full hearing before this court if there is no real prospect of a different result than was reached by the judge who conducted the trial, heard the witnesses and the arguments and reached a judgment.
The claim in this case was made by Mr Hussein in the claim form of 15th February 2002. He completed the form, which asked for brief details of the claim as follows, "For assault by an employee of the defendants with a weapon resulting in injury." He also claimed loss of a watch and slander by the defendant's employees. He initially put a value of £57,500 on his claim.
The particulars which he gave were as follows:
"On Sunday the 9th September, 2001 the Claimant paid the Defendants a fifty pound note to place a £10.00 bet. The Defendants cashier took the money but refused to give the balance of the change. When requested to give the change he started making faces. When the Claimant told him to stop making monkey faces and give the change he picked up some kind of a long stick or poster container ran out from behind the counter and hit me twice on the head causing me head and facial injuries.
"As I had put up my right arm to protect my head in the process I lost my Patek Phillips Watch which must have fallen off in the assault. The replacement value of the watch is £7,500. It has not been found. I suffered injuries to my head and my face. I have not been able to work since from resulting loss of short term memory, headaches and blurred vision. I am still under treatment for my injuries. The cashier is a man whose tendency to violence was well known to his employers. He had attempted to hit another customer at his previous shop. The Manager of the branch had to physically restrain him from assaulting a customer at that shop. The Defendant by their negligence to take proper steps allowed the Defendant to assault the Claimant. I claim £50,000 for the injuries and £7,500 replacement value of my watch."
He also claimed interest and costs. All that is alleged to have occurred in the William Hill Group's premises in Streatham, called the Locarno branch.
The person employed by William Hill Group, who is alleged to have assaulted Mr Hussein in the manner described, was an Afro-Caribbean deputy manager cashier, Mr Whyms. The claim was defended by William Hill Group, who admitted that Mr Hussein was assaulted by Mr Whyms in or around 9th September 2001 at the Locarno branch. It was admitted that Mr Whyms was employed by the William Hill Group, but it was denied that he was acting in the course of his employment when he committed the assault. They denied being vicariously liable for what he had done to Mr Hussein.
It was alleged that Mr Hussein had subjected Mr Whyms to verbal and racist abuse, or that, alternatively, Mr Whyms had reasonably interpreted the verbal abuse as offensive and racist. It was also alleged that Mr Hussein had subjected the William Hill Group manager at the branch, Claire Sammut, to verbal abuse. It was alleged that as a result of the verbal abuse directed at Mr Whyms, that Mr Whyms had assaulted Mr Hussein. It was explained that Mr Whyms was dismissed by William Hill on 14th September. It was William Hill Group's understanding that the alleged assault was reported to the police at Streatham Police Station. They investigated the assault and racist abuse and decided to take no further action.
In an important part of their defence William Hill Group said this:
"… the Claimant was assaulted once by the said Whyms on or about his upper arm only and the said Whyms used a hollow cardboard tube 32" long and 2" wide (the said tube being of a type normally used as container for rolled up paper marketing literature) ."
They did not admit the extent of the injury caused by the assault and put Mr Hussein to proof of all the loss, damage and injury which he alleged.
Finally, they said they would refer to a closed circuit television video tape for its full effect indicating the limited duration and extent of the assault. On their case the assault lasted 14 seconds from when Mr Whyms left his work station to locate Mr Hussein and then, after locating him, ultimately to commit the assault. They said that the tape showed that, immediately after the assault, Mr Hussein's spectacles had not moved from his face, nor were they damaged as a result of the assault.
Mr Hussein put in a response to that defence. He said that there was no provocation or abuse by him. That, he said, was a story made up as a defence long after the events. No mention was made at the relevant time about alleged abuse of Claire Sammut, the manager of the branch.
He referred again to the circumstances in which the disagreement arose between him and Mr Whyms about change for a £50 note and how Mr Whyms was making faces at him and refusing to give him the £40 change due to him. He commented on the CCTV evidence and rounded off his response by saying that those who were responsible for the lies and fabrications should be ordered to give their statements under oath, so that they can be dealt with for attempting to pervert the course of justice. He asked for judgment on the watch on the basis that no defence had been put up for that claim.
That was the case which came on before Hallett J. It was heard over three days; 26th, 27th January and 3rd February this year. Mr Hussein represented himself. Miss Foster of counsel represented William Hill Group.
The judge heard a number of witnesses. One of Mr Hussein's complaints is that she did not hear all the witnesses and that she should have done, that he had subpoenaed a number of witnesses, who she had refused to allow to give evidence on the grounds that, in her view, the evidence they could give was not relevant.
The important point I should make at this stage is that the decision reached by Hallett J was based on her view of the credibility of the claim and of the evidence given in support of the claim and against it. Hallett J had an advantage, which this court never has, that is of seeing and hearing witnesses give their evidence; seeing how they respond to cross-examination and then being able to form a view as to who she should believe when contradictory accounts are given about the incident in which the assault occurred.
Hallett J came to the conclusion that, although the assault was admitted by William Hill Group, Mr Hussein had exaggerated the extent of it, the seriousness of it and the consequences of it. She said in paragraph 46:
I have no doubt that Mr Hussein when he realised he had a claim against the defendants deliberately exaggerated it in the hope of persuading the defendants to settle out of court. He has involved others in concocting a grossly inflated claim. When the defendants refused to settle, he embarked upon a campaign against them. This included making wild allegations of lies, racism, and attempts to pervert the course of justice. He threatened to "sort out" Dr Fry [who was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Constable v Executive Connections Ltd and Others
... ... The only other shareholder is ECHM Group Ltd ("ECHM") which holds 15,000 A shares. The A ... ...
- Rocca v Minister for Immigration
-
Mr Sayed Hussein v William Hill
...grounds of appeal, were considered in a detailed judgment delivered by Mummery LJ on 17 th June 2004. The neutral citation number is [2004] EWCA Civ 899. Having considered all these matters Mummery LJ refused permission to appeal. This judgment should be read with the judgments of Hallett J......