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

Baird v Thurrock Borough Council, Court of Appeal, 7 November 2005

24 November 2005
The issues

Judge’s failure to give adequate reasons for preferring Claimant’s evidence

The facts

The Claimant was a dustman working for the Defendant local authority. A dustcart had two hoists at the rear for lifting bins and emptying them into the dustcart. The Claimant’s case was that the automatic operation of the hoist had cut in unexpectedly and despite the fact that he had overridden the automatic action with the right hand hoist and that he had been hit by the bin as it lowered. Two witnesses who worked with the Claimant said at Trial that the right hand hoist had been in the raised position after the accident and that if this had not been the case they could not have driven the cart away with the bin attached.

The Judge found the Claimant truthful and his evidence supported by the evidence of the joint expert. The Defendant appealed on the grounds that the Judge had failed to give any adequate reasons.

The decision

The Judge was entitled to express his views briefly. He had to express them clearly however. The Judge must address the main evidential conflicts and identify why the Judge found as he did. In this case it was unclear whether the Judge understood the importance of the evidence of the two witnesses. There was no finding as to whether the right hand bin had been up or down when the dustcart had driven off. The Judge had not said in what way the witness’s evidence was untruthful or inaccurate. The evidence of the joint expert was neutral as between the two accounts. In these circumstances the decision could not stand.

Appeal allowed. Re-trial ordered.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

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