Youssif v Jordan

Permission to appeal should be granted where it is arguable that a claim was summarily dismissed after material expert evidence on causation was misread, insufficiently considered, or rejected without adequate explanation. The existence of serious evidential and procedural difficulties, including presentation by a litigant in person, does not remove an arguable complaint that the case was disposed of unsatisfactorily.

The claimant brought a clinical negligence claim arising from an operation and continuing symptoms. On 29 July 2002, the Mayor's and City of London Court, sitting through His Honour Judge Marr Johnson, upheld the defendant's submission of no case to answer and dismissed the claim, principally on causation.

The claimant, appearing in person, sought permission to appeal. He alleged that the judge had misread the medical evidence, failed adequately to address his surgeon's opinion on causation, and declined to hear further evidence from another proposed medical witness. He also sought to adduce further medical reports. The central issue was whether the trial had arguably been disposed of unsatisfactorily.

Lord Justice Pill granted permission to appeal. The application was not a determination that the claim would succeed, but the claimant had identified arguable concerns about the manner in which the trial had been concluded.

1. The trial judge had treated causation as an insuperable obstacle and acceded to a submission of no case to answer. On the medical material described in the judgment, however, it was arguable that the evidence of the claimant's ENT surgeon required further consideration and a reasoned explanation if it was to be rejected.
2. It was also arguable that the claimant had not received adequate consideration of evidence relevant to his case. He alleged that the judge had declined to hear evidence from another proposed medical witness because the claimant had not established that the witness was a doctor. The claimant sought to produce material addressing that issue.
3. The claimant's case presented serious difficulties. He was a litigant in person, had not sufficiently explained some of his points, and faced substantial costs risks. Those difficulties did not justify refusing permission where the grounds of appeal raised an arguable concern that the case had not received the attention it required.
4. The application to call fresh evidence was adjourned for consideration by the court hearing the appeal. The court also indicated that mediation might be sensible. There was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) granted permission to appeal and adjourned the application to call fresh evidence for consideration by the appeal court.
2. Mayor's and City of London Court on 29 July 2002 acceded to the defendant's submission of no case to answer and dismissed the clinical negligence claim, principally on causation.