Lee v Khraud & Ors (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 714 (KB) (01 April 2025)

Lee v Khraud & Ors (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 714 (KB) (01 April 2025)

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities and based on the evidence and reasonable inferences, that the appellant failed to take reasonable care for his own safety in the face of an obvious and foreseeable risk, justifying a finding of contributory negligence and a one third reduction in damages; the judge correctly applied the burden of proof and did not engage in impermissible speculation.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 714 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr Charles Jack Lee; Defendant/respondent: Mr Parminder Singh Khraud; Defendant/respondent: Mr Michael Fletcher; Defendant/respondent: Mr Jason Wright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision on Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Workplace Safety, Apportionment of Liability, Burden of Proof, Appeals Procedure
Tort Personal Injury Health and Safety Contributory Negligence Workplace Safety Apportionment of Liability Burden of Proof Appeals Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Charles Jack Lee

Claimant/appellant

Mr Parminder Singh Khraud

Defendant/respondent

Mr Michael Fletcher

Defendant/respondent

Mr Jason Wright

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision on Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the appellant contributorily negligent in the absence of direct evidence as to how the accident occurred
  2. 2 Whether the apportionment of one third reduction for contributory negligence was justified
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misapplied the burden of proof or engaged in impermissible speculation

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities and based on the evidence and reasonable inferences, that the appellant failed to take reasonable care for his own safety in the face of an obvious and foreseeable risk, justifying a finding of contributory negligence and a one third reduction in damages; the judge correctly applied the burden of proof and did not engage in impermissible speculation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The finding of one third contributory negligence and reduction of damages stands.