Karia v ICS (Management) Services Ltd

A trial judge may determine a claim on a focused issue where the claimant, through counsel, has confined the case to that issue and success on it is essential to liability. Although ruling without requiring the defendant to elect is unusual and requires considerable caution, it is permissible where, on rejection of the claimant’s essential evidence, no useful purpose would be served by hearing further evidence. A party generally cannot complain under Article 6 that the court failed to decide an issue which the party chose not to present. Appellate intervention with credibility findings requires a proper basis for doing so.

The claimant appealed from the dismissal of her personal injury claim in the Watford County Court and the order for indemnity costs. She had pleaded repetitive strain injury caused by negligent or statutorily unsafe keyboard work. At trial, however, counsel confined liability to allegations that the computer system and keyboard had been deliberately interfered with, causing the keys to become stiff and requiring excessive keystrokes.

After hearing the claimant and her technical expert, the judge accepted the defendant’s submission that the claim could not succeed. He rejected the harassment allegations as fanciful and found that the alleged conduct could not realistically be attributed to the defendant. The central issues were whether the judge had failed to try the pleaded case, whether he should have required an election before ruling, and whether his credibility findings were open to challenge.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge had tried the case as it was presented. Counsel had expressly abandoned the ordinary repetitive-strain and system-of-work case and stated that liability depended on proving interference with the computer system.
2. Once the judge rejected the claimant’s essential allegation of harassment, the claim necessarily failed. There was no reason to hear medical or other evidence on injury and causation because those matters could not establish liability on the case advanced at trial.
3. Following Boyce v Wyatt Engineering, a judge invited to rule on a claimant’s case without putting the defendant to its election must proceed with considerable caution. Nevertheless, the judge has power to adopt that course in a suitable case, although such cases are rare. This was suitable because the case depended on the claimant’s credibility and no useful purpose would have been served by hearing further evidence after her essential allegation had been rejected.
4. The judge’s assessment that the allegations were fanciful was open to him. The allegations were highly improbable, lacked a credible motive, and faced an additional difficulty concerning vicarious liability. The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with those findings.
5. Lady Justice Arden added that, even assuming reliance on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a party generally cannot complain that the court failed to adjudicate on a point which the party chose not to put before it. Her observation was supported by TP and KM v United Kingdom, although the Convention point had not been argued fully.

Order: appeal dismissed with costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Watford County Court dismissed with costs.
• Watford County Court: His Honour Judge Ansell dismissed the personal injury claim and ordered indemnity costs.