Baird v Thurrock Borough Council

A judgment may be brief, but it must explain the resolution of every issue vital to the decision. Where a claim turns on irreconcilable evidence about a fundamental fact, merely stating that one witness was believed does not provide adequate reasons. The judge must identify the conflict and explain why the competing evidence was rejected as mistaken or untruthful.

If inadequate reasons prevent the appellate court from determining a credibility-dependent dispute, the proper course is a retrial before a different judge.

An agency worker recovered damages from a local authority for personal injuries sustained while loading wheelie bins onto a refuse vehicle. The trial judge accepted his account that a hoist unexpectedly changed from manual to automatic operation, found negligence and breach of statutory duty, and reduced the agreed damages by 25% for contributory negligence.

The authority appealed from Southend County Court. It contended that the judge had failed to explain why he accepted the claimant's account despite evidence from two other witnesses which was wholly inconsistent with it. The central issue was whether the trial judge had given adequate reasons for resolving that decisive factual conflict.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The trial judge's reasons did not satisfy the requirement that a judgment explain why the decision was reached. A judge may give brief reasons, but must identify the issues vital to the conclusion and explain their resolution. The parties and an appellate court must be able readily to analyse the reasoning essential to the decision: English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd & Orrs [2002] 1 WLR 2409 applied.

2. Gage LJ held that the decisive conflict concerned the position of the right-hand wheelie bin after the accident. If the two defence witnesses were correct that it remained raised, the claimant could not have been struck by that bin as he alleged. The trial judge neither demonstrated that he appreciated this conflict nor made findings about the bin's position when the refuse vehicle moved away.

3. The trial judge accepted that the two defence witnesses were not attempting to mislead the court, yet did not explain why their evidence on the critical fact was mistaken or otherwise inaccurate. A bare statement that the claimant was believed after the witnesses had been seen and heard was insufficient. Ward LJ added that a judge need not address every point, but a dispute fundamental to the case requires mention and an explanation of any apparent inconsistency.

4. The trial judge also erred in treating the jointly instructed expert's evidence as corroborating the claimant's account. The expert showed that the hoist could behave in the manner alleged, but did not and could not express an opinion about how this accident had occurred.

5. The Court of Appeal could not determine the factual dispute from the transcripts because the outcome depended upon which witnesses were truthful and accurate. The judgment was therefore set aside and the claim remitted to the County Court for a retrial before a different judge. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed unanimously. The judgment was set aside and the claim remitted to the County Court for retrial before a different judge: [2005] EWCA Civ 1499.

2. Southend County Court: HHJ Yelton entered judgment for the claimant for £7,500 plus interest after finding negligence and breach of statutory duty, subject to a 25% reduction for contributory negligence.