Evans v Thistle Hotels

An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s evaluation of evidence, apportionment of responsibility or assessment of damages where the judge was better placed to determine the facts and no legal or procedural error is shown. A complaint that witnesses were untruthful, or that the award was too low, does not establish an unfair trial merely because the claimant lost. Findings about contributory responsibility and future loss are especially fact-sensitive. Permission to appeal should therefore be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no proper basis for appellate intervention.

The claimant, who had represented himself at trial, brought a personal injury claim against his former employer after suffering back symptoms while carrying crockery as a kitchen porter. The Central London County Court found a breach of statutory duty under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, found causation, assessed the claimant as 60% responsible, and awarded £7,500. The claimant sought permission to appeal, alleging an unfair trial, excessive personal responsibility and an inadequate award because the judge had found him fit for light work. The central issue was whether those complaints disclosed any basis for appellate intervention.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Lord Justice Tuckey, refused permission to appeal.

1. The allegation of an unfair trial was unfounded. The claimant’s complaints that witnesses had lied, that the judge had appeared sympathetic, and that the damages award was too low amounted in substance to disagreement with the result. An unsuccessful outcome does not itself establish procedural unfairness.
2. The trial judge had considered whether the employer should have provided manual aids, such as a trolley, but had also found that the claimant could have reduced the loads he carried. The apportionment of 60% responsibility was an evaluation of the evidence and was primarily for the trial judge. The Court of Appeal was not in an equally good position to assess that evidence and identified no basis for interference.
3. The judge had accepted the medical evidence that the claimant was fit for light work from September 1999. The finding that he had not sought such work and would have suffered no loss had he obtained it was likewise a factual assessment falling within the trial tribunal’s province. No arguable error justified appellate intervention.
4. The claimant’s difficult personal circumstances attracted the court’s sympathy but did not create a legal ground of appeal. The application was refused.

• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Collins found the employer in breach of statutory duty under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, found causation, apportioned 60% responsibility to the claimant and awarded £7,500.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused.