Major v Lamyman

Major v Lamyman

The appellate judge erred by intervening without identifying that the trial judge's decision was wrong or unjust due to procedural or other irregularity. The trial judge gave adequate reasons, and the medical evidence was properly considered. The original dismissal of the claim should be restored.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Paul Andrew Major; Appellant/defendant: Peter Ernest Leonard Lamyman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judge's dismissal of claim restored
Legal Topics
Appeals, Judicial Reasoning, Workplace Accident, Evidence Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Andrew Major

Respondent/claimant

Peter Ernest Leonard Lamyman

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Second Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the first appellate judge applied the correct principles in allowing the appeal and ordering a retrial on liability
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge gave adequate reasons for his decision to dismiss the claim
  3. 3 Whether the medical evidence was properly considered in relation to the claimant's account of the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate judge erred by intervening without identifying that the trial judge's decision was wrong or unjust due to procedural or other irregularity. The trial judge gave adequate reasons, and the medical evidence was properly considered. The original dismissal of the claim should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judge's dismissal of claim restored

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed