Atkins v Co-Operative Group Ltd [2016] EWHC 80 (QB) (26 January 2016)

Atkins v Co-Operative Group Ltd [2016] EWHC 80 (QB) (26 January 2016)

The fresh medical evidence (Dr Peebles' report and Dr Limbrey's addendum) could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before judgment and is pivotal to the issues of causation and quantum. It is appropriate to vary the judgment to reflect breach of duty only, with causation and quantum to be assessed, and to reserve the issue of repayment of the interim payment for the trial judge.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 80
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Desmond Atkins; Defendant/appellant: Co-operative Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Master Gidden Dated 25 March 2015
Outcome
Appeal allowed; paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of Master Gidden varied.
Legal Topics
Asbestosis, Diffuse Pleural Thickening, Interim Payments, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Medical Causation
Personal Injury Tort Asbestosis Diffuse Pleural Thickening Interim Payments Fresh Evidence on Appeal Medical Causation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desmond Atkins

Claimant/respondent

Co-operative Group Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Master Gidden Dated 25 March 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh medical evidence should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether judgment should be varied to reflect breach of duty only, with causation and quantum to be assessed
  3. 3 Whether interim payment should be subject to repayment depending on outcome of causation and quantum

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh medical evidence (Dr Peebles' report and Dr Limbrey's addendum) could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before judgment and is pivotal to the issues of causation and quantum. It is appropriate to vary the judgment to reflect breach of duty only, with causation and quantum to be assessed, and to reserve the issue of repayment of the interim payment for the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of Master Gidden varied.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant on breach of duty, with issues of causation and quantum to be assessed.
  • The issue of whether the interim payment made pursuant to the order dated 25 March 2015 should be repaid in part or in whole shall be reserved and addressed at the conclusion of the trial on causation and quantum.