King v Chang

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed evidential error could not conceivably have affected the result. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with factual conclusions reached after the trial judge considered the relevant evidence and reached a conclusion open to him. A judge may also refuse an adjournment to obtain legal representation where legal aid has been withdrawn and circumstances have not materially changed. Unsupported allegations and proposed criminal proceedings against a party do not constitute grounds of appeal.

The claimant was injured in a road accident when aged 14 and later claimed damages for psychiatric injury and loss of career prospects. After a liability-only trial, His Honour Judge Lauriston QC preferred the defendant’s evidence, found that the accident was caused by the claimant’s failure to keep a proper lookout, and dismissed the claim.

The claimant applied for an extension of time and permission to appeal. He challenged the exclusion of witness statements, the refusal of an adjournment to obtain legal representation, and the judge’s factual findings. He also sought to rely on further material and raised allegations concerning the defendant. The central issue was whether any proposed ground disclosed an arguable error capable of affecting the result.

Sir Anthony Evans gave the first judgment and Lord Justice Aldous agreed. The applications were refused.

1. Witness statements. The only substantial ground concerned the refusal to admit statements from Mr and Mrs Jones under the Civil Evidence Act, because proper notice had not been given. That evidential ruling was one the trial judge was entitled to make. In any event, the statements could not conceivably have affected the result. Neither witness had seen the claimant’s movements immediately before the collision, which was the crucial issue.
2. Factual findings. The trial judge had heard the oral evidence, considered the admissible witness statements, and taken account of the measurements and calculations relied upon by the claimant’s father. His preference for the defendant’s evidence and his conclusion on liability were conclusions he was entitled to reach and, in the Court of Appeal’s view, were correct.
3. Representation and case management. The judge was entitled to refuse an adjournment to obtain legal representation. The claimant’s legal aid certificate had been discharged in 1995 and there had been no relevant change in circumstances. The decision to determine liability separately, given difficulties concerning medical evidence, was also sensible.
4. Further material and other allegations. The proposed fresh evidence was unclear, and the Court had read the bundle. Unsubstantiated allegations against the judge or defendant, and a proposed criminal retrial of the driver, did not disclose grounds of appeal.

Order: Applications for permission to appeal and to rely upon further evidence refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). In [2001] EWCA Civ 88, the Court unanimously refused permission to appeal and refused the application to rely upon further evidence.
• Weymouth County Court. His Honour Judge Lauriston QC dismissed the claimant’s claim after a liability-only trial on 9 December 1998.