Pickford v. Imperial Chemical Industries Plc

The House of Lords allowed the employer's appeal and restored the trial judge's findings. The court emphasised the deference due to a judge who has seen and heard witnesses, particularly where complex and conflicting medical evidence is central to the case. The claimant bore the burden of proving that her PDA4 (cramp of the hand due to repetitive movements) was organic in origin and caused by her work; the trial judge was entitled to conclude she had not proved that on the evidence. On the facts found by the trial judge it was not reasonably foreseeable that the claimant's secretarial work would cause PDA4 and the employer was not negligent in failing to give the specific warnings and supervision given to specialist typists. The court therefore dismissed the Court of Appeal's interference with those factual findings.

The respondent was a long-serving secretary who claimed that prolonged typing at ICI caused her to develop PDA4 (cramp of the hand due to repetitive movements). She alleged negligence in that her employers failed to warn her of the risk and failed to supervise or limit her typing as they did for intensive users in the accounts department.

The trial judge heard extensive medical and lay evidence and found that, while the respondent may have had cramp of the hand, she had not proved an organic cause or that her condition was caused by her typing in a legally sufficient sense. He also found that the nature of her secretarial duties allowed natural breaks and that it was not reasonably foreseeable that her working pattern would give rise to PDA4; accordingly he dismissed the claim.

The Court of Appeal by a majority reversed the trial judge on causation, foreseeability and negligence. The employer appealed to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords held that:

• The trial judge was entitled to adopt a neutral position on the medical controversy and to require the claimant to prove an organic causation for PDA4 where that was essential to her claim.
• Because the medical evidence was disputed and complex, the judge's advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses entitled his findings to particular weight; the Court of Appeal should not have substituted its view on primary facts.
• On the judge's findings it was not reasonably foreseeable that the claimant's mixed secretarial duties would cause PDA4 and the employer was not negligent in failing to give the same warnings/supervision used for specialist typists.

Relief sought: damages for industrial disease. Issues framed: whether respondent suffered PDA4 of organic origin, causation by work, foreseeability and employer negligence (warnings/supervision). The House of Lords reasoned that the burden of proof remained with the claimant, that the trial judge's assessment of medical and lay evidence was within his province, and that foreseeability and breach were not established on the facts found.

Appeal allowed. The House of Lords concluded that the trial judge's factual findings on the medical evidence, causation, foreseeability and negligence were within his discretion and should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeal. The claimant had not proved an organic cause of PDA4 attributable to her work and the employer owed no further duty to give the specialist warnings or supervision applicable to dedicated typists.

High Court (trial before His Honour Judge Eifion Roberts Q.C.): claim dismissed. Court of Appeal: majority allowed the respondent's appeal ([1997] I.C.R. 566), one judge dissenting (Swinton Thomas L.J.). House of Lords: allowed the employer's appeal ([1998] UKHL 25) and restored the trial judge's conclusions.