Collins-Williamson v Silverlink Train Services Ltd

Permission to appeal may properly be granted where a proposed ground raises a real prospect that a material factual finding or conclusion on liability will not withstand scrutiny. This is particularly so where the evidence has not been adequately analysed, or where competing inferences remain open. An important and genuinely arguable issue concerning the safety of a system of work or train operation may also justify permission. At the permission stage, the court should identify whether the grounds warrant examination on appeal without determining the merits of the disputed evidence.

Silverlink Train Services Ltd sought renewed permission to appeal from a judgment of His Honour Judge Reddihough in the Queen’s Bench Division dated 7 November 2008. The judge found in favour of Mr Collins-Williamson on liability for injuries sustained after he fell between a station platform and a departing train, although he was held one-half responsible.

The proposed appeal challenged findings that the train guard was negligent and that the negligence caused the accident. It also challenged the finding that the system for working and moving trains at the station was unsafe. Permission had been refused on the papers by Smith LJ. The central question was whether the proposed grounds were sufficiently arguable to warrant permission to appeal.

1. Permission granted. The renewed application was granted generally. The Court of Appeal did not determine the merits of the proposed appeal.
2. There was a real prospect that the judge’s finding that the claimant had walked approximately 14 metres along the platform before falling would not be sustained. The witness evidence was difficult to reconcile, and the judge had not made clear how the finding arose from it.
3. The location of blood on the train did not necessarily establish the point at which the claimant fell. Other possibilities remained open, including an earlier fall, and there was a further gap into which he might have fallen. These matters created an arguable challenge to the factual basis for the finding that the guard should have seen the claimant before re-boarding.
4. The system-of-work and train-movement issue was also important and arguable. The judge had found that an openable window in the guard’s compartment should have enabled observation of the platform after the guard entered the compartment. That issue deserved consideration by the appellate court.
5. Lord Justice Pill expressly left detailed analysis of the evidence to the constitution hearing the appeal. Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed without adding reasons.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the renewed application, permission to appeal was granted generally. Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: His Honour Judge Reddihough found for the claimant on liability in a personal injury claim, while finding him one-half responsible.
• Permission stage: Smith LJ refused permission on consideration of the papers; the application was renewed and granted by the Court of Appeal.