Momoniat v Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

On a second appeal, permission should be refused unless the application raises an issue of principle in law or practice, or another compelling reason. Where a jointly instructed expert gives clear evidence negating causation, and no material is produced to challenge that evidence, dismissing the claim at that stage may be a proper and proportionate course. A bare assertion that the expert was given incomplete information does not itself establish a reason for granting permission.

The applicant claimed damages from his employers, alleging that their treatment of him, or their failure to prevent treatment by colleagues, caused stress and significant health problems. A jointly instructed psychiatrist concluded that his psychiatric conditions were unrelated to his employment.

A Deputy District Judge dismissed the claim and awarded costs on 30 October 2000. His Honour Judge Gee dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 28 June 2001. The applicant then applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to bring a second appeal. The central issue was whether the application disclosed an issue of principle in law or practice, or another compelling reason for an appeal.

1. The application for permission to appeal was refused.
2. On a second appeal, the court had to consider whether the application raised an issue of principle in law or practice, or whether there was any other compelling reason to grant permission.
3. The psychiatrist’s report was clear and unequivocal. It concluded that the applicant’s psychiatric problems were not related to any action or inaction by his employers.
4. Although the applicant asserted that the information supplied to the psychiatrist was inadequate, he had produced no further material showing that the expert opinion was deficient or open to challenge. The lower courts were therefore entitled to regard their conclusions as inevitable on the material before them.
5. In those circumstances, the claim was doomed to failure. Dismissing it at that stage was a proper and proportionate response, particularly because it reduced the costs the applicant would otherwise face. No issue of principle or other compelling reason arose.

Order: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal.
• Preston County Court: His Honour Judge Gee dismissed the appeal from the Deputy District Judge’s decision on 28 June 2001.
• Preston County Court: Deputy District Judge Featherston dismissed the claim and awarded costs on 30 October 2000.