Jones v Home Office

In an application for permission to appeal a personal injury judgment, the claimant must establish both that the accident occurred as alleged and that the defendant was negligent. A res ipsa principle does not reverse that burden where the evidence does not establish the accident or want of care. An appellate court will not re-try disputed facts or interfere with findings made by a trial judge who heard the evidence, where those findings are supported by ample evidence. Safe working instructions, readily available assistance and the absence of proof of excessive weight, height or foreseeable risk may support rejection of negligence. A serving prisoner could not pursue breach of statutory duty under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 on the concession recorded. Permission refused.

This was a renewed application by a serving prisoner for permission to appeal against an order of Llangefni County Court dismissing his claim for damages for a back injury allegedly sustained while lifting clothing sacks at prison work. The trial judge rejected the applicant’s evidence about the accident, accepted evidence that safe lifting instructions and assistance were available, and found no sufficient basis for negligence. The applicant relied on alleged breaches of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, a common-law duty of care, and the principle that the facts could speak for themselves. The central issues were whether the factual findings could be challenged on appeal and whether the proposed appeal had a realistic prospect of success.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal held that the proposed appeal could not succeed.
2. The claimant bore the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, both that the accident occurred in the manner alleged and that the defendant was negligent. The principle relied on from the health and safety textbook, concerning a presumption arising where an accident would not have occurred without want of care, did not apply. The claimant first had to establish the accident and then prove negligence.
3. The trial judge had heard the evidence and was entitled to make findings rejecting the claimant’s account, rejecting his supporting witness’s evidence, and accepting the evidence of the prison officer responsible for the work. Findings of fact could not properly be challenged in the appellate court where there was ample evidence to support them.
4. The findings also provided a sufficient basis for rejecting negligence. The evidence did not establish that the sacks had the asserted weight or that they were lifted to the asserted height. The claimant had been instructed to lift with bent knees, keep his back straight, and obtain help with heavy items, and assistance was readily available. On those findings, the work did not present an established foreseeable risk of injury sufficient to found liability.
5. The judgment recorded the concession that, because the claimant was a serving prisoner rather than an employee, no claim for breach of statutory duty lay under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. The Court of Appeal did not need to determine any wider question about the Regulations’ relevance to common-law negligence. The lower court’s findings were therefore undisturbed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Renewed application for permission to appeal refused.
2. Llangefni County Court — On 10 January 2002, His Honour Judge Halbert dismissed the personal injury claim and gave judgment for the Home Office.