Willett (Now Whitling) v Marks & Spencer

Where a trial judge’s conclusion on a vital issue cannot be understood from the judgment, the appellate process cannot operate satisfactorily. The judge must identify the issues critical to the result and explain how they were resolved. This duty does not require every evidential factor to be recorded.

In a causation case involving an original injury and a later incident, the judge must address the material causal alternatives. If the later incident may itself have resulted from disability caused by the original injury, that possible chain of causation must also be determined. Failure to give reasons for rejecting it may require a rehearing.

The appellant claimed damages for personal injury allegedly suffered while moving heavy counters in her employer’s store on 11 January 1993. Liability had been admitted, subject to a 10 per cent reduction for contributory negligence.

The defendant argued that a later stumble on stairs, or other intervening events, caused most or all of the continuing problems. His Honour Judge Poulton awarded £2,850. The claimant appealed, arguing that the judge had failed to resolve the causal relationship between the original injury, the stair incident and the later disability, and had given no reasons for finding that the stair incident was unrelated to the original injury.

1. Appeal allowed. The damages assessment was remitted to the High Court for rehearing before another judge, who was to consider the matter afresh.
2. The trial judge correctly recognised that the claimant bore the burden of proving causation. The Court of Appeal would not interfere merely because another judge might reach a different factual conclusion.
3. Nevertheless, the judge had to decide whether the workplace incident or the stair stumble caused the later injury. If the stair incident caused the injury, he also had to decide whether it resulted from the pain and disability caused by the original incident. The causal-chain reasoning in Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd was therefore material.
4. The conclusion that the stumble was not caused by the original incident was unsupported by reasons. The judgment did not explain why relevant evidence was rejected or how the competing expert evidence was evaluated.
5. Applying Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd and English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd, the judgment had to explain the resolution of issues vital to the result. The failure was sufficiently fundamental to require a rehearing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal from His Honour Judge Poulton’s order dated 30 August 2001 and remitted the damages assessment to the High Court for rehearing.