Palmer v Becque

On an appeal from a personal injuries assessment, the Court of Appeal will not substitute its own view on disputed facts, credibility, causation or damages for that of the trial judge. Intervention requires a demonstrated error or an assessment plainly outside the range reasonably open on the evidence. Where a claimant’s unreliable presentation makes it impossible to determine whether, or to what extent, continuing psychological symptoms were caused or worsened by the accident, the court may make no award for those sequelae or related future loss. Genuine psychological distress and vulnerability do not, without reliable evidence of accident-related causation, resolve that issue.

The claimant sought permission to appeal from a judgment of the Brighton County Court, where His Honour Judge Michael Kennedy QC had awarded just over £19,000 for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The judge made adverse findings about the claimant’s reliability and awarded damages for physical injuries and limited urinary deterioration, but made no award for psychological effects, impotence, future earnings or future care.

The proposed appeal challenged the valuation of the injuries, the refusal of a £400 claim for future urological treatment, the absence of damages for psychiatric injury, and the findings about the claimant’s evidence. The central issue was whether the trial judge had been entitled to reach those factual and causation findings on the evidence.

1. Permission refused. Lady Justice Hale gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Simon Brown agreeing. The court made no order for costs.
2. The trial judge was entitled to assess the claimant’s present problems and decide to what extent they were caused or exacerbated by the accident. There was ample evidence of inconsistency and unreliability in the claimant’s accounts. The judge could consider that evidence, his own observations of the claimant in court and the issues raised in the expert reports.
3. The psychological evidence justified the conclusion that the claimant’s chosen presentation of complete incapacity made it impossible to identify whether, or to what extent, his continuing psychological condition was caused or contributed to by the accident. The claimant’s psychological distress and vulnerability did not resolve that causation question.
4. The proposed challenges to general damages, psychiatric injury and future loss were inseparable from the factual and psychological findings and could not properly be determined without a complete retrial. The Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the judge’s conclusions were wrong, or that the damages assessment was plainly outside the range open to him on the evidence.
5. The judge was also entitled to assess the limited effect of post-accident catheterisation on the claimant’s pre-existing urinary problems. The application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Brighton County Court was refused. No order for costs was made.
• Brighton County Court: His Honour Judge Michael Kennedy QC gave judgment for the claimant on 31 July 2001, awarding just over £19,000, including damages for pain and suffering, special damages and interest.