Dingley v. Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police

The House of Lords considered whether trauma can "trigger" symptomatic multiple sclerosis and, if so, whether the appellant's whiplash injury in a police van accident had done so. The court emphasised that the civil standard of proof is the balance of probabilities but that expert scientific evidence must be evaluated by the judge and tested by reference to all available material.

On the evidence (clinical reports, epidemiological studies, animal experiments and neuropathological studies such as Oppenheimer), the leading opinion in the Inner House (the Lord President) concluded that the epidemiology and experiments did not establish that trauma in general, or whiplash in particular, is a probable trigger for symptomatic multiple sclerosis. The House of Lords upheld that analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a retired police constable, sued for damages after developing symptomatic multiple sclerosis following a road traffic accident in which a police van overturned and he sustained a whiplash-type injury. The Lord Ordinary found for the appellant and awarded substantial damages. The respondent admitted liability for the accident but denied that the accident caused the onset of multiple sclerosis.

The case raised two linked issues formulated by the courts: (i) the general question whether trauma can trigger the onset of symptomatic multiple sclerosis in a susceptible individual and (ii) the particular question whether, if trauma can so trigger the condition, the appellant's accident did so.

• Nature of the claim: a personal injury claim seeking damages for consequential illness (multiple sclerosis) allegedly caused or triggered by trauma sustained in the accident.
• Issues framed by the court: whether trauma can ever trigger symptomatic multiple sclerosis; whether the appellant's whiplash injury was such a trigger in his case.
• Procedural posture: proof before the Lord Ordinary (June 1995) resulted in a large award, the First Division of the Court of Session allowed the reclaiming motion and reduced the award to an agreed solatium of £1,500 (1998 S.C. 548). The appeal to the House of Lords was taken under section 40(1) of the Court of Session Act 1988.

The courts relied on extensive expert evidence: consultant neurologists for both sides, academic neurologists, epidemiological studies (including the Arizona and Mayo Clinic studies), animal experimental data, and neuropathological work (notably Oppenheimer). The Inner House, particularly the Lord President, conducted a detailed appraisal of these materials and concluded that the available epidemiology did not support a probable causal link and that the experimental and pathological material stopped short of establishing a mechanism by which ordinary whiplash trauma would commonly produce symptomatic multiple sclerosis. The House of Lords agreed that the Inner House had not misapplied the civil standard of proof and was entitled to conclude that the appellant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that his accident triggered his multiple sclerosis. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The House held that on the balance of probabilities the appellant had not proved that trauma can be shown to trigger symptomatic multiple sclerosis in general, nor that the whiplash injury sustained in the accident was a probable cause of the appellant's symptomatic disease. The Lord President's detailed analysis of clinical, epidemiological and experimental evidence was upheld and the appellate court found no misdirection in law or application of an incorrect standard of proof.

Proof before the Lord Ordinary (June 1995) resulted in an interlocutor awarding damages of £547,250. The Chief Constable reclaimed and the First Division of the Court of Session allowed the reclaiming motion, reducing the award to an agreed solatium of £1,500 (1998 S.C. 548). The appellant appealed to the House of Lords under section 40(1) of the Court of Session Act 1988; the House dismissed the appeal ([2000] UKHL 14).