Kozlowska v Thurloe (t/a Judi Thurloe Sports Horses)

A trial judge must give reasons sufficient to explain to the losing party why the case was decided against them and to enable an appellate court to assess whether the conclusion was rational. The reasons need not be extensive, but they must address important strands of evidence, particularly where the judge accepts part of a witness’s account and rejects another part, or rejects an apparently contemporaneous document. Failure to give adequate reasons may require the judgment to be set aside. Where essential factual issues remain unresolved, the appellate court should remit the matter for rehearing rather than determine those issues itself.

The claimant, an employed groom, suffered an ankle injury when she jumped from a horse while exercising it. The district judge found the employer liable and damages were later agreed at £17,250.

The employer appealed on the basis that the district judge had made important findings without adequate reasons. The disputed issues included which horse the claimant had been instructed to ride, whether she had changed horses, whether she had been permitted to canter, the route and conditions of the ride, and the level of supervision required. The central question was whether the findings were sufficiently reasoned to support the conclusion that the employer had failed to provide a safe system of work.

1. Appeal allowed. The district judge’s judgment was set aside because several important findings of fact were inadequately explained.
2. The findings about the horse allocation, the significance of the daily lists, whether the claimant had changed horses, and whether she had been permitted to ride at a canter were central to the existence of a safe system of work. They were not peripheral. The judge was required to explain why particular evidence was accepted or rejected.
3. Reasons need not impose a heavy burden or be lengthy. However, where evidence contains several strands, the judge may need to identify those strands and explain the rejection of evidence supported by more than one witness or document. That need is especially clear where parts of a witness’s evidence are accepted and other parts rejected. An apparently contemporaneous document must ordinarily be addressed if it is rejected.
4. The judge was also wrong to conclude that the claimant could not have reached British Horse Society Stage 1 competence merely because she had fallen twice. That conclusion was unsupported by the evidence and was perverse. The judge had impermissibly substituted his own assessment for the employer’s assessment without explaining whether that assessment was dishonest, incompetent or unreasonable.
5. Nevertheless, reversal and judgment for the employer were inappropriate. Further reasoned findings were necessary, and this court could not safely make them itself. The claim was remitted to York County Court for rehearing by a circuit judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed. The district judge’s liability judgment was set aside, and the claim was remitted to York County Court to be heard by a circuit judge.
• York County Court: District Judge Handley had found the employer liable following the personal injury claim. The order was made on 15 February 2011.