0370 270 6000

Hall v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

15 November 2001
The issues

Procedure – alteration of case at trial.

The facts

Claimant Teacher sued Bolton for personal injuries on the grounds that she had been assaulted by a pupil who had learning difficulties and behaviour problems. There was a policy with regard to the treatment of the pupil but the Claimant alleged that it was inadequate and it amounted to failure to provide her with a safe system of work. During the trial the Claimants Expert had a problem attending. Accordingly the Judge allowed the Local Authority to call the Deputy Head for his Expert Evidence and then allowed the Claimants Expert to continue to finish her oral evidence. At the end of the oral evidence the Judge said that he was unsure what the Claimants case was. He requested written confirmation over an adjournment. The Claimants Council produced a written note, which went into greater detail as to why the Claimants case that the policy with regard to the child was inadequate should be accepted. The Local Authority claimed that this was a new Pleading. The Judge did not accept that argument and the trial continued, the Claimant being successful. The Local Authority appealed on the grounds that the note gave the Claimant an unfair advantage, in particular given the fact that the Claimants Expert was allowed to continue giving oral evidence after the Local Authority had called its own evidence.

The decision

1. The Local Authority could have dealt with the “advantage” that the note had as far as the Claimant was concerned by dealing with it in closing speeches.

2. No application to adduce for the evidence had been made by the Local Authority and it was not clear what evidence the Local Authority would have wanted to call had it been able to seen the note before.

3. The Judge had all the evidence before him. The Court could not interfere with his decision on the basis of a hypothetical scenario.

Appeal Dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up