Cockram v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis & Anor

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, the threshold is a real prospect of success, meaning more than a fanciful prospect. The court need not determine the merits at that stage. An appeal may satisfy the threshold where it raises an arguable question whether an accepted risk of injury could have been avoided by a simple and readily available precaution. The seriousness of the injury’s consequences may also be taken into account. Permission can therefore be granted despite hesitation and an indication that the court hearing the full appeal may ultimately reach the opposite conclusion.

The applicant, a detective constable, injured his knee during mandatory arrest and restraint training. He fell from a judo mat onto a concrete floor while practising a sweep kick.

The Central London County Court dismissed his personal injury claim. The judge held that the mats provided were adequate, while rejecting the submission that a safe system required mats large enough to cover every area where a participant might fall.

The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether there was a real prospect that the employer’s duty required additional or larger mats to guard against the risk of a sideways fall onto the concrete floor.

1. Permission granted. The renewed application was allowed. There was no order for costs.
2. The relevant threshold was whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success. In this context, that meant a prospect which was more than fanciful.
3. The lower court’s reference to a requirement for a mat of sufficient size had to be read with its surrounding findings. It was not necessarily rejecting any requirement to protect against a foreseeable fall, but could instead be saying that the defendants did not have to provide a mat which protected the claimant wherever or however he fell.
4. Even on that reading, the applicant had an arguable case. The risk of injury from falling onto the concrete floor was accepted. The risk might arguably have been avoided simply and without cost by providing each pair of officers with two mats, particularly as further mats were apparently available.
5. The court did not determine whether that argument would succeed on the full appeal. Lord Justice Tuckey expressly recognised that the view previously formed on paper might ultimately prevail when the full court heard the appeal and the Commissioner was represented. The serious consequences of the injury supported granting permission.

• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Crawford-Lindsay, QC dismissed the personal injury claim on 10 January 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On renewal of the application, permission to appeal was granted under [2001] EWCA Civ 797. The merits of the appeal were left for determination by the full court.