England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CARDIFF DISTRICT REGISTRY
(Mr Justice Morison)

		The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Thursday 11 July 2002

Thursday 11 July 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL:This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a judgment of Morison J, sitting at Cardiff on 20 February 2002 in a personal injury claim.
2. Liability to pay a proportion of damages was admitted and the case proceeded, to consider quantum. It was a complex case and expert and lay evidence was called by both parties. The judge in substance found for the defendant on the medical issues. Damages were awarded but on a modest scale. The evidence had been heard over a period of four days.
3. Central to the judge's conclusion was that he accepted the evidence of the defendant's expert, Dr Bird, a neuropsychiatrist, that expertise being explained by him when he gave evidence. The accident, which occurred in the course of a semi-contact karate session organised by an experienced exponent in the field, happened in February 1995. Dr Bird first examined the claimant in December 1998. We have considered the skeleton argument prepared by Mr Jarman QC and he has developed orally this morning in particular his criticism of the learned judge's reasoning at paragraph 24 of the judgment, where the judge sets out under five headings the main reasons why he preferred "Mr Bird's opinion", as he put it, to the evidence called on behalf of the claimant.
4. In my judgment there is an arguable case which merits the consideration of this court. Arguably there are defects in the judge's reasoning, first, and probably most important, in his reasoning in paragraph 24, to which I have referred. I do not propose to spell out the submissions of Mr Jarman in any more detail. Moreover, there are arguably defects in the learned judge's reasoning on the matters he subsequently dealt with: the effect and relevance of an earlier incident which had occurred in 1992, and the question of what would have been the claimant's condition after 1995 if the karate incident had not occurred.
5. I have regard to the cogently expressed reasons of Simon Brown LJ for refusing permission to appeal on paper. A claimant has a difficult task when seeking to overturn the finding of a judge on medical evidence, where the judge has heard the evidence at length and has set out his reasons for preferring the evidence of the defendant's witness. I bear that in mind, but in my judgment this is a case in which the issues raised are such that the claimant is entitled to have the reasoning of the learned judge examined and reviewed in this court.
6. The only further point of detail to which I would refer is the judge's finding in 24(5) in relation to the parents, in which a very critical remark is made about them. Mr Jarman tells us that this was explored in evidence. Either the remark was gratuitously made by the learned judge, which I doubt, or it was a part of his reasoning; and if the latter, one would have expected an analysis of the evidence which led to such a strong finding.
7. For the reasons I have given, I would give permission to appeal generally.
8. SIR MARTIN NOURSE: I agree and have nothing to add.
ORDER: Application allowed