Ball v Wessex Water Services Ltd (t/a Wessex Water)

Permission to appeal and an extension of time should be refused where the proposed appeal is entirely unarguable. A litigant in person must still comply with clear case-management decisions and court orders, including requirements to obtain permission before relying on expert evidence. Where those orders were not successfully appealed and the applicant had an opportunity to present admissible evidence, the resulting evidential limits did not establish procedural unfairness. Fresh evidence should not be admitted where it is produced very late and the delay is inadequately explained. Objective communication of participation options, followed by a request that the hearing proceed in the applicant’s absence, did not establish misleading or improper conduct.

Liability was conceded after Andrew Ball fell down a manhole maintained by Wessex Water. The remaining dispute concerned the extent and causation of alleged physical and psychological injury, and the resulting damages. By the quantum hearing, Mr Ball was acting in person, living in Australia, and did not attend. He had asked the High Court to proceed in his absence.

On 5 July 2004, His Honour Judge Bursell QC awarded £800 general damages and £25 special damages. Mr Ball sought an extension of two months and permission to appeal, alleging that he had been misled about participating by telephone, had not received adequate assistance, and that important medical evidence had not been considered. He also sought to rely on a new psychological report.

The Court of Appeal, in the judgment of Lady Justice Hallett, with Lord Justice Ward agreeing, refused the renewed application for an extension of time and permission to appeal.

1. Arguability. The proposed appeal was entirely unarguable. The High Court’s conclusions were supported by the only admissible expert evidence and by Mr Ball’s own statement. The medical evidence did not establish that the accident had caused the alleged continuing disability or psychological problems.
2. Case management and expert evidence. The court’s case-management decisions and orders had not been successfully appealed. Their terms and effect were sufficiently plain. They limited the evidence that could be relied upon at the quantum hearing, and Mr Ball had had the opportunity to obtain evidence and seek permission to use it. His status as a litigant in person did not alter that position.
3. Participation in the hearing. The correspondence set out Mr Ball’s available options objectively. There was no evidence that the respondent’s solicitor, or the court, had misled or improperly pressured him into asking that the hearing proceed in his absence.
4. Fresh evidence and delay. The proposed psychological report was produced too late. The delay was inadequately explained, and Mr Ball had previously had the opportunity to obtain medical evidence and seek permission to rely on it. The circumstances did not justify extending time or reopening the damages assessment.

Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ([2005] EWCA Civ 1518, 12 October 2005): refused the renewed application for an extension of time and permission to appeal.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Bristol District Registry: His Honour Judge Bursell QC made an order on 5 July 2004 awarding £800 in general damages and £25 in special damages.