Merlin Entertainments PLC v Emilia Idziak

A trial judgment must explain the reasoning essential to the result, particularly where technical evidence and competing factual or causation arguments are central. Brevity is permissible, but the judgment must identify the decisive issues and show how they were resolved.

Where a trial judge accepts a technical explanation which logically undermines the claimant’s case, the judge must reconcile that finding with any contrary conclusion. Failure to engage with material arguments, contradictory evidence or an alternative causation case may make the judgment inadequate. An appellate court should order a retrial where resolving the case would require new factual findings, rather than deciding the claim on a new factual basis.

The claimant succeeded in a personal injury claim in the Cambridge County Court arising from an incident on Merlin’s rollercoaster at Chessington World of Adventures. The recorder found that faults had occurred repeatedly, that there had been a significant overspeed and deceleration, and awarded general damages of £18,000.

Merlin appealed, alleging inadequate reasons and errors concerning whether there had been an actual overspeed, whether the claimant’s car was affected, the role of an air-line failure, and causation. On appeal, the central issue was whether the recorder’s findings and reasoning were coherent and sufficient to explain the result.

1. Appeal allowed; retrial ordered. The recorder’s judgment did not adequately explain why Merlin’s case failed and the claimant’s case succeeded.
2. The recorder had accepted the evidence that the overspeed alarms resulted from sensors being too close together. That finding logically indicated that the car was not actually travelling faster, although the computer detected an overspeed. The recorder nevertheless found a significant actual overspeed and relied on that finding in concluding that the ride exceeded its design tolerances and caused significant deceleration. The judgment did not reconcile those conclusions.
3. The recorder also failed to address Merlin’s material argument that the recorded overspeed related to a different car from the claimant’s car. Although an overspeed in one car could cause other cars to stop, that did not answer the argument that the documentary evidence contradicted the claimant’s account of her car travelling significantly too fast.
4. The recorder further failed to address the causation argument based on the air-line failure. The evidence indicated that it may have caused the relevant stoppage and was unrelated to the earlier overspeed alarms. The recorder mistakenly treated the failure as occurring in the morning and gave no reason for rejecting the relevant evidence.
5. The principles in Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, English v Emery Reinbold & Strick Ltd, Baird v Thurrock Borough Council, Weymont v Place and Simetra v Ikon require reasons sufficient to identify the issues, explain the treatment of important evidence and permit appellate analysis. The recorder’s judgment did not meet that standard.
6. The claimant’s new argument that the claim could succeed solely because the emergency stop caused deceleration could not determine the appeal. It raised factual questions about foreseeability, negligence, the significance of deceleration and causation which had not been resolved at trial. The case therefore had to be retried.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): On appeal from the Cambridge County Court, the appeal was allowed and the claim was ordered to be retried.