Jolghazi & Anor v Ali

An appellate court may uphold a damages assessment despite an inaccurate summary of one expert report where the judgment, read as a whole, shows that the conclusion was supported by the full evidential picture. Relevant matters include later clarification in cross-examination, concessions properly made at trial, other expert evidence, and the medical history. In a personal injury claim, a later deterioration must be proved to have been caused by the accident. An expert’s evidence that causation is only possible, rather than probable, may support rejection of that link.

The claimant was injured as a front-seat passenger in a road traffic accident caused by the admitted negligence of the first defendant. The trial judge awarded her £5,465, finding that the accident caused soft-tissue injuries and an adjustment disorder, but that a later substantial deterioration was attributable to other factors. The appeal alleged that the judge had failed to consider, or had materially mischaracterised, an orthopaedic surgeon’s August 1999 report and had consequently reached an unsafe assessment of causation and damages. The central issue was whether that error required the award to be set aside and the issue of quantum retried.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the award of £5,465.
2. The judge had misstated the effect of the orthopaedic surgeon’s August 1999 report. The report recorded continuing neck and back pain, restricted activity, and findings said to be consistent with continuing orthopaedic symptoms. That criticism was therefore justified.
3. Nevertheless, the error did not undermine the result. The judgment had to be read as a whole. The judge had considered the evidence concerning the period up to late 1998 and early 1999, including the early recovery recorded by other medical practitioners. In cross-examination, the orthopaedic surgeon accepted that the earlier material was consistent with ordinary recovery, that the orthopaedic consequences had resolved to a tolerable level within a fairly short period, and that the later deterioration could not be explained orthopaedically.
4. The judge was entitled to find that the substantial deterioration first evident in 2001 was not caused by the accident. He relied on the comparatively minor nature of the accident, the medical evidence, the psychiatric evidence resolved in favour of the defence, and concessions made on behalf of the claimant. The proposed causal explanation based on MRI findings remained only a possibility and was not established as probable.
5. Lord Justice Rix agreed, emphasising the judgment as a whole, the unchallenged psychiatric evidence, and the trial submissions. Lord Justice Laws agreed with Lord Justice Hooper’s reasons. The order was: appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 20 March 2006, the appeal was dismissed and the county court’s damages award upheld.
• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Cowell awarded the claimant £5,465 in damages for the admitted negligence of the first defendant.