0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Willett v Marks & Spencer, Court of Appeal

30 October 2002
The issues

Failure to give reasons – causation – back injury.

The facts

The Claimant alleged she had suffered a serious back injury in 1993 when moving large and heavy counters in the store in which she worked to another store. The Defendant alleged that the real cause of her injury was an accident a month later whilst she had still been off work and when she stumbled whilst climbing the stairs at home. The Claimant denied any connection other than the possibility that it was her original injury that had caused her to stumble. The Judge at first instance found that the Claimant’s injury had been caused by the accident on the stairs and was unrelated to the accident at work, but he gave no reasons.

The decision

1. The Judge was wrong in saying that he did not have to assess the separate causative impacts of the two accidents.

2. Finding that the injuries caused in the second incident were entirely the consequence of twisting on the stairs when the Claimant stumbled, he should have asked himself whether that accident was itself the result of the pain and problems caused by the first incident at work.

3. The fact that he failed to give any reasons undermined his conclusion. The Judgment would be set aside and the matter sent to the High Court for re-Trial before another Judge.

Appeal allowed.

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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