Corbett v South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority

Whether to adjourn a damages issue pending a related appeal is a case management decision. The Court of Appeal is especially reluctant to interfere, particularly where the issues, evidence or factual context differ. The prospect of duplicated cost and a later appeal may support an adjournment, but does not compel one. Courts should consider cost, time and the value of obtaining a useful cross-section of first-instance decisions for later appellate guidance. No definitive category of cases can be prescribed in advance. The decision must reflect the circumstances of the particular litigation.

The claimant brought clinical-negligence proceedings for damages arising from brain injury sustained at birth. Liability was admitted, most heads of loss were agreed, and the remaining issues concerned future care and case management and the index by which periodical payments might be adjusted.

The defendant applied to adjourn the indexation issue until the Court of Appeal decided the related appeal in Thompstone [2006] EWHC 2904. His Honour Judge Bullimore refused the application but granted permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the judge had erred in refusing to adjourn.

1. Appeal dismissed. The refusal to adjourn the indexation issue was a proper case management decision. The Court of Appeal was especially reluctant to interfere with such decisions.
2. The issues were not identical, or virtually identical, to those in Thompstone. The present case involved a higher and potentially varying multiplicand, a dispute about the type and cost of care, and different defendant’s expert evidence. The claimant’s evidence might also bear on the care required and therefore on indexation.
3. The possibility that an adjournment would avoid expense, time and a likely appeal did not determine the matter. The judge could properly proceed with the scheduled hearing while deciding the other issues and considering the particular evidence before him.
4. The court endorsed the practical value identified in Flora v Wakom (Heathrow) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1103: several first-instance decisions could provide a useful cross-section for later appellate guidance on indexation. It could not prescribe definitively which cases should form part of any group appeal.
5. Judges must make their own case management decisions, having regard to cost, time and the desirability of a sensible number of cases being considered together. The likely possibility of a later conjoined appeal did not make an adjournment necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the defendant’s appeal from the refusal to adjourn the indexation issue.
• Sheffield County Court: on 24 November 2006, His Honour Judge Bullimore, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, refused the defendant’s application to adjourn the issue pending the appeal in Thompstone.