Lazell v Stena Line and Another

A carrier which undertakes to transport a passenger must take reasonable care when arranging transport through a third party. That duty is not discharged merely because the local provider complies with local safety standards. The carrier must ascertain what those standards require and whether they are adequate. Evidence of compliance is relevant only if the content and standard of the relevant test are established. An appellate court will not interfere with a case-management decision to exclude late evidence where admitting it would open a substantial new issue and prejudice an unrepresented party. Costs remain a matter of judicial discretion and will rarely justify a standalone appeal.

The claimant was injured after slipping on a raised door-stop while alighting from a bus provided during a cross-Channel ferry trip. Southampton County Court found that he had been transported by the first defendant, that the bus was unsafe, and that the first defendant was liable for breach of an implied contractual duty to take reasonable care. It also awarded indemnity costs.

The defendants renewed an application for permission to appeal after permission had been refused on paper. They challenged the factual findings, the implied contractual duty, the alleged agency relationship, the exclusion of late evidence concerning French safety testing, and the indemnity costs order. The central questions were whether any arguable error of law or abuse of discretion had been shown.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The factual challenges did not disclose an arguable basis for appellate intervention. The judge was entitled to accept the claimant’s evidence, reject the contrary evidence, and resolve the factual issues in his favour.

2. It was unnecessary to determine whether the second defendant owned or operated the particular bus. The first defendant’s liability depended on whether it had failed to provide reasonably safe transport, not on the precise ownership of the bus.

3. Where a carrier has contracted to transport a passenger, an implied term requiring reasonable care in arranging transport through a third party is necessary and obvious. The term does not make the carrier an insurer of the passenger’s safety.

4. The principle recognised in Wilson v Best Travel Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 353 was accepted. A carrier cannot discharge its duty simply by checking compliance with local standards without considering what those standards require. Compliance with standards that are themselves inadequate may not amount to reasonable care.

5. The judge was entitled to exclude late evidence that the bus had passed the French Mines test. Without evidence of the test’s content and standard, the evidence would not resolve the issue and would instead create a further, complex inquiry. Excluding it was a case-management decision within the judge’s discretion and was not capable of being impugned on appeal.

6. The indemnity costs order was troubling because it appeared to have been backdated beyond the period in which the relevant defence was pursued. Nevertheless, costs orders are discretionary and need not be adjusted with complete precision. The costs issue did not justify a separate appeal.

Order: application refused.

• Southampton County Court: Judge Darlow made findings of fact on 31 July 2000.
• Southampton County Court: On 4 December 2000, the court found the defendants wholly liable and awarded damages to be assessed, together with indemnity costs.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal had been refused on paper by Sir Murray Stuart-Smith. The renewed application was refused by Lord Justice Sedley on 16 March 2001.