Wilson v Ministry of Defence & Anor

In a personal injury claim, a judge must identify the findings that determine the claimed loss and explain why the losing party’s evidence is rejected. Later exaggeration of symptoms does not, without more, establish that the claimant recovered earlier or that the accident did not cause continuing disability. The court must engage with material contemporaneous records and expert evidence, especially where they bear on causation and loss of earning capacity. Where inadequate reasons prevent meaningful appellate review and the central factual issues cannot fairly be resolved on appeal, the proper course is to set aside the assessment and order a rehearing before another judge.

The claimant, a former RAF helicopter pilot, brought a personal injury claim after liability for a simulator accident was admitted. The trial judge concluded that he had fully recovered within three months, treated later complaints as deliberate fabrication, and assessed damages at £1,000 for pain and suffering. The claimant appealed, arguing that the judgment failed to address contemporaneous medical records and expert evidence concerning continuing symptoms, his discharge and his ability to work. The Ministry of Defence defended the assessment on the basis of exaggeration. The central issue was whether the findings on continuing injury, functional disability and causation had been adequately reasoned.

Appeal allowed. The assessment of damages was set aside and ordered to be reheard before a judge other than HHJ Simpson.

1. Lord Justice Tuckey held that the judgment did not explain why the claimant was found to have made a full recovery three months after the accident. It failed to engage with the substantial contemporaneous evidence, including the records of treating doctors, the Medical Board and the claimant’s continuing symptoms until his discharge from the RAF.
2. The defendant’s case at trial was that the claimant had exaggerated symptoms and that any remaining symptoms were not disabling. The judge reached the more extreme conclusion that all complaints after three months were fabricated, but did not explain why. Later exaggeration, including conduct during skiing holidays, was not by itself determinative of whether the accident had caused earlier continuing symptoms or had led to the claimant’s discharge.
3. A judgment must make clear why the unsuccessful party lost. If material expert evidence is rejected, the judge must say so and give reasons. In difficult cases involving alleged disabling soft-tissue injuries, the judge must spell out the findings and the reasoning supporting them.
4. The Court of Appeal declined to assess damages on an alternative fixed period of disability. Whether the accident affected the claimant’s ability to work was a critical issue, complicated by pre-existing degenerative changes, and could not fairly be resolved without a properly reasoned rehearing. Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Wall agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed; the order was set aside and the assessment of damages was directed to be reheard by a judge other than HHJ Simpson.
2. Mayor and City of Central London Court (HHJ Simpson): Liability was admitted and damages were assessed at £1,000 on the basis that the claimant had recovered within three months.