Lambert v Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd

An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s factual findings merely because another view of the evidence is possible. A challenge to findings based on witness credibility and the weight of evidence is not arguable unless the findings are shown to be perverse or unreasonable. Medical evidence may assist on causation, but it does not conclusively determine the factual question of the work performed by a claimant. That question is for the trial judge. A distinct minor injury cannot sustain an action where the substantial claim concerns a different condition and the evidence does not establish the required causation.

Lambert v Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd arose from a claim by Mr Alan Lambert that a hernia was caused by manual work required during his employment with Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd. The claim relied on negligence and the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. The employer denied liability.

His Honour Judge Barry, sitting in the Dewsbury County Court at Leeds, found that the hernia was not caused by any breach of statutory duty or negligence. The claimant renewed an application for permission to appeal after permission had been refused on paper. The central issues were whether the judge had been entitled to reject the claimant’s account of the manual work he performed and whether the available medical and factual evidence made an appeal arguable.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal, per Lord Justice Pill, held that the proposed appeal had no realistic arguable basis and refused permission.
2. The trial judge was entitled to determine the work which the claimant had actually performed. A doctor’s account of the work described by the claimant could not conclusively determine that factual issue. The judge had to assess the claimant’s evidence and the evidence of other witnesses.
3. The judge had rejected the claimant’s evidence that he was frequently required to move very heavy machinery manually. He relied on other witnesses’ evidence that suitable machinery was available and that the claimant could obtain assistance. The appellate court had no transcript of the evidence or counsel’s notes, but the material placed before it did not show that the judge’s reliance on those witnesses was perverse or unreasonable.
4. The medical evidence indicated that the hernia had developed over a period of years and involved work performed in previous employments as well as at Ashtead. That evidence did not overcome the judge’s factual findings or establish that the employer had caused the hernia by breach of duty.
5. The groin strain suffered in June 1997 could not itself sustain the action. It was properly treated as background, since the substantial claim concerned the hernia. The court therefore concluded that it was not arguable that the decision would be reversed.

Order: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): A renewed application for permission to appeal was refused by Lord Justice Pill on 2 November 2001.
2. Dewsbury County Court, sitting at Leeds: His Honour Judge Barry gave judgment for Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd, finding that the hernia was not caused by breach of statutory duty or negligence.