Pearson & Anor v Ahmed

In an appeal of this kind, the Court of Appeal had no power to order the further disclosure sought for the purpose of challenging the judgment below. An applicant for permission to appeal must identify material capable of giving a realistic basis to disturb that judgment.

In a personal-injury claim, compensation is recoverable only for injury and loss caused by the defendant's negligence. Continuing symptoms which cannot be attributed to that negligence do not found a claim for damages against the negligent driver.

The claimant was injured when the defendant's car struck his stationary vehicle from behind. Liability was undisputed. Medical experts agreed that he had suffered a soft-tissue lower-back injury, but could not attribute his continuing symptoms to the accident after the initial period.

Judge Playford QC in the Birmingham County Court awarded £500 for loss of earnings and £2,000 general damages. The claimant, acting in person, sought permission to appeal and sought disclosure of medical, insurance and related documents. He alleged that his case may not have been properly handled because the same insurer was involved on both sides.

The documents subsequently obtained did not materially advance his proposed appeal. The central issues were whether further disclosure could be ordered in this appeal and whether there was any basis to disturb the county court judgment.

1. Applications dismissed. Lord Justice Brooke dismissed both the application for further discovery and the application for permission to appeal.
2. The court had no power, in an appeal of this kind, to make the disclosure orders sought. Complaints concerning the conduct of those who had handled the claimant's case had to be pursued, if at all, in a forum other than an appeal from Judge Playford's judgment.
3. The further general-practitioner and hospital material did not provide a useful basis for challenging the judgment. The omission of matters from an orthopaedic surgeon's summary of a medical letter did not show a deficiency capable of disturbing the judgment. The expert's report also contained the current-form declaration that the expert's overriding duty was to the court.
4. There was no prospect of setting aside the award. The trial judge had assessed damages by reference to the limited accident-related injury established in the agreed joint medical report. Although the claimant continued to suffer difficulties, the medical material did not establish that those continuing injuries were caused by the defendant's negligence. The defendant and his insurers were therefore not liable to compensate losses unconnected with that negligence.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): applications for further disclosure and permission to appeal dismissed: [2002] EWCA Civ 152.
• Birmingham County Court: Judge Playford QC awarded £500 for loss of earnings and £2,000 general damages on 15 February 2001.