Hall v Holker Estate Co Ltd

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, permission may be granted where the proposed grounds are properly arguable and require consideration on a full appeal, even though the prospects of success remain uncertain. In a personal-injury claim involving falling goalposts, it was arguable that the first-instance judge had failed to apply the approach in Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 All ER 219. Where an accident is not one which would ordinarily occur if the relevant equipment were properly secured, the defendant may be required to explain why the accident did not result from want of care. The Court of Appeal granted permission without determining liability.

The appellant’s personal-injury claim arose when goalposts at the respondent’s caravan park fell and injured him while he was playing football. The Oldham County Court dismissed the claim on 8 November 2007. The judge accepted that the risk was reasonably foreseeable, that the goalposts were secured by pegs, that the respondent knew the pegs were sometimes interfered with, and that the accident was unusual. He concluded that the evidence did not show that the inadequate securing had existed long enough to make weekly inspection insufficient.

Hughes LJ refused permission on the papers on 9 April 2008. On renewal, the central issue was whether the first-instance judge had properly addressed the adequacy of the respondent’s inspection and replacement system and had applied the approach in Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd.

1. Permission granted. Lord Justice Laws held that the proposed appeal was at least arguable and should be canvassed in a full appeal. The court did not decide whether the respondent was liable or whether the appeal would ultimately succeed.
2. The accident involved goalposts which were probably not properly pegged down. The first-instance judge had found that the risk of their falling was reasonably foreseeable, that the respondent knew that pegs were sometimes interfered with, and that the occurrence was unusual, if not unique. He treated the central question as whether the respondent’s system for dealing with such interference was adequate.
3. It was arguable that the judge should have applied the law as applied in Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 All ER 219. Where an accident is not one which in the ordinary course of things would have happened, and the relevant equipment had been properly fixed, it was arguable that the defendant had to provide an explanation showing that the accident had not arisen from want of care.
4. The appellant had identified arguable difficulties in the first-instance reasoning. The respondent had called no direct evidence of a system for inspection and replacement of pegs. The judge may have required the appellant to prove that the incident was not isolated, despite evidence, including a DVD, that pegs had been displaced on other occasions. The judgment was diffuse and prolix, creating an arguable concern that the central issues had not been confronted fairly and squarely.
5. The renewed application was therefore granted, although the court cautioned that the appellant should not assume that the appeal would succeed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 22 May 2008, Lord Justice Laws granted the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Oldham County Court: HHJ Armitage QC dismissed the personal-injury claim on 8 November 2007.
• Permission decision: Hughes LJ refused permission on consideration of the papers on 9 April 2008.