Holt v Holroyd Meek Ltd

A court may find for a claimant where the claimant’s account is broadly reliable but includes inaccurate, embellished or rejected detail. The court must identify the essential facts from the evidence and ensure that those facts remain consistent with the general thrust of the pleaded case and establish liability. It must not construct a different case where the claimant’s proposed mechanism is false or wholly unreliable. A claimant who knows that a workplace surface is slippery is not necessarily contributorily negligent when carrying out a task required by the employer. Liability requires proof that the claimant acted in a manifestly careless manner. Appellate courts should respect factual findings and broad-brush assessments of contributory negligence made by the trial judge.

The claimant, a heavy goods vehicle driver employed by the defendant, slipped on the defendant’s forecourt while refuelling his vehicle. The trial judge found that the surface contained a mixture of diesel and water, that the cleaning and inspection system was inadequate, and that the claimant’s slip caused serious personal injury. Judgment was entered for the claimant, with damages assessed at £171,027.

The defendant appealed from the decision of Mr Recorder Pratt in Maidstone County Court. It argued principally that the judge had found liability on a case involving diesel and water which the claimant had not properly advanced. It also challenged the finding of no contributory negligence.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Potter delivered the judgment of the court, and Lord Justice Chadwick agreed. The trial judge’s findings were based substantially on his assessment of the witnesses and were properly open to him.
2. A trial judge must distinguish between two situations. If the claimant’s proposed circumstances or mechanism of accident is false or wholly unreliable, the judge should not substitute a different mechanism which is consistent with liability but was not advanced. If, however, the claimant’s account is broadly correct, the judge may reject or disregard inaccurate, embellished or mistaken details. Where the essential facts remain clear, are consistent with the general thrust of the claim, and establish the ingredients of liability, the judge is entitled, and may be obliged, to give judgment on that basis.
3. The trial judge was entitled to find that the claimant’s description of a surface awash with diesel conveyed an impression of a wet and contaminated area, rather than scientifically establishing that the liquid consisted entirely of diesel. The evidence of other employees and former employees provided sufficient corroboration for the finding that the mixture of oil and water caused the slip. The defendant’s cleaning system was inadequate, although that issue was not challenged on appeal. The forecourt was also treated as a workplace subject to the Workplace Health Safety and Welfare Regulations and as premises governed by the common duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
4. Knowledge that the surface was dangerous did not establish contributory negligence. The claimant had been directed to refuel and had been told that failure to do so would affect payment. He could not be criticised absent proof that he carried out the task in a manifestly careless manner. The trial judge’s broad-brush conclusion was one with which the appellate court should not interfere.

Order: appeal dismissed with costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the decision of Mr Recorder Pratt sitting in Maidstone County Court on liability and damages. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
• Maidstone County Court: Judgment for the claimant on liability following an accident at the defendant’s premises; damages were subsequently assessed at £171,027.