Carr v East Sussex Fire & Rescue Authority

Where agreed evidence establishes a sequence of events that bears directly on liability, a trial judge must grapple with its implications. Findings which cannot stand together in light of that evidence disclose a material error in reasoning. An appellate court may allow the appeal and remit the case for rehearing where the error prevents a reliable determination of the issues. The rehearing should address the evidential consequences of the established sequence rather than preserve mutually inconsistent factual findings.

The appellant claimed damages after a collision between his motorcycle and the respondent’s fire engine at a traffic-light-controlled crossroads. The Brighton County Court dismissed the claim. The appeal concerned the consistency of the judge’s findings with the agreed sequence of the traffic lights, including the period during which all lights showed red. The central issue was whether the findings that both vehicles entered on green, while the appellant crossed as his light turned red, could stand together.

The appeal was allowed unanimously, and the action was remitted for rehearing before another judge.

1. The agreed evidence showed that nine seconds elapsed between the appellant’s light ceasing to be green and the fire engine’s light becoming green. This included three seconds of amber, four seconds when all lights were red, and two seconds of red and amber for the fire engine.
2. The trial judge accepted the fire-engine driver’s evidence that the fire engine entered the junction only when its light was green. He also found that the appellant crossed when his light was turning red. Those findings were mutually inconsistent. If the appellant had crossed just after his light turned red, the four-second period when all lights were red should have enabled him to clear the junction before the fire engine was permitted to enter.
3. The judge had failed to grapple with the implications of the timing and sequence of the lights, despite having the relevant plan and agreed calculations. That failure produced a material error in reasoning and meant that the factual findings could not safely support the dismissal of the claim.
4. The Court of Appeal did not determine the underlying liability issues. The case was sent back for a fresh hearing before another judge.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appeal and remitted the action for rehearing before another judge.
2. Brighton County Court: HHJ Hollis dismissed the appellant’s claim for damages.