Campbell v UK Coal

On an appeal against findings of fact, the appellate court must exercise caution and should not substitute its own assessment merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. The question is whether there was material on which the trial judge could properly reach the conclusion adopted. Where the judge has considered competing expert evidence and relied on a coherent medical history, an alternative interpretation of that evidence will not justify interference. Evidence that an accident mechanism is consistent with traumatic injury may be outweighed by the subsequent course of symptoms and other evidence supporting a pre-existing degenerative cause.

The appellant was injured at work when he fell and used his left hand to arrest the fall, causing shoulder pain. Negligence was admitted. The central issue was whether a type 2 SLAP lesion and continuing shoulder symptoms were caused by the accident or resulted from pre-existing degenerative changes.

After hearing competing orthopaedic evidence, the Leeds County Court, presided over by His Honour Judge Langan QC, found that the accident aggravated an underlying condition but that the continuing symptoms were attributable to degeneration. The appellant appealed, arguing that the factual findings and conclusions were outside the range of reasonable conclusions open to the judge.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that its task was not to decide whether it would have reached the same conclusion as the trial judge. The question was whether there was material upon which the judge could properly reach his conclusion. The fact that the case was finely balanced did not alter that approach.
2. Lord Justice Moses held that the judge was entitled to prefer Mr Fagg’s evidence that an acute traumatic SLAP tear would ordinarily have produced much greater immediate pain and disability. The appellant continued working and did not consult his general practitioner until nine days after the accident. The relatively symptom-free period between June 2003 and February 2004 was capable of supporting a degenerative explanation.
3. The judge was entitled to assess the whole post-accident history, including the earlier history of shoulder symptoms and accepted early degeneration. Although the mechanism of the fall was consistent with traumatic injury, and the first arthroscopy showed no visible degeneration, those matters did not compel a different conclusion. The judge was entitled to accept evidence that degenerative signs might be difficult to see within the socket.
4. Lord Justice Maurice Kay agreed that the evidence concerning the lack of significant initial disability supported the judge’s reasoning. Lord Justice Wall likewise emphasised that a different conclusion might have been reached at first instance, but that was not the appellate test. The order was: appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division), [2008] EWCA Civ 1641: appeal dismissed.
• Leeds County Court, before His Honour Judge Langan QC: negligence was admitted, but the judge found that the continuing shoulder symptoms were caused by degenerative changes rather than the accident.