Lindesay v Lamb & Anor

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, permission should be granted where the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success. In a chain collision, negligence may consist in failing to observe slowing traffic and braking in time, rather than merely in causing an impact. The causation inquiry may therefore consider how earlier braking would have affected vehicle speeds, timing and the available stopping space for vehicles behind. The Court of Appeal may grant permission where that causal issue is genuinely arguable, without finally determining causation.

This was a renewed application by Mr Lamb for permission to appeal from a judgment of Wilkie J dated 14 December 2007. The judge had found the lorry liable in negligence to Mr Lindesay, subject to 20% contributory negligence, and had considered a Part 20 claim between the lorry driver and Mr Tatner, the taxi driver.

The taxi driver admitted negligence after colliding with a Toyota. The central issue was whether that negligence was properly characterised as late observation and braking, and whether it was causatively relevant to the subsequent collision involving the lorry and scooter.

Application granted. The Court of Appeal did not determine the merits of the causation issue. It considered whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success.

1. The taxi’s admitted negligence had been described by the judge as failure to brake in time to avoid colliding with the Toyota. The factual material recorded in the judgment indicated that the alleged breach was more precisely a failure to observe the slowing Toyota and to begin braking in time. That characterisation was material to the Part 20 causation issue.
2. The judge had stated that the collision left the taxi nearer to the traffic behind than it would have been without negligence. That reasoning was arguably wrong. If the taxi had braked earlier, it might have stopped sooner and nearer to the vehicles behind, although the earlier reduction in speed might also have given the lorry and scooter more time and space to stop safely.
3. It remained possible that the lorry-scooter accident was independent of the taxi’s negligence. Nevertheless, it was reasonably arguable that the taxi’s late braking created difficulties for the vehicles behind and contributed causatively to the accident. The judge’s conclusion that the negligence was irrelevant was given without reasons sufficient to eliminate that argument.
4. Lord Justice Rix therefore granted permission to appeal. The Chancellor of the High Court agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 15 May 2008, the renewed application for permission to appeal was granted because the proposed causation argument had a real prospect of success.
• Queen’s Bench Division, Wilkie J: Judgment delivered on 14 December 2007. The lorry driver was found liable in negligence to Mr Lindesay, with 20% contributory negligence, and the taxi’s negligence was held irrelevant to causation between the lorry and scooter.