Jones v Johnson [2001] EWCA Civ 554 (5 April 2001)

Jones v Johnson [2001] EWCA Civ 554 (5 April 2001)

The trial judge gave clear and sufficient reasons for his findings, including his preference for the defendant's expert evidence and his assessment of the claimant's pre- and post-accident condition. There was no error in the approach to damages or inferences drawn, and no basis for further permission to appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 554
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Stephen Francis Jones (by Marie Dale, his Litigation Friend); Defendant/respondent: Brett Daniel Johnson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for further permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Expert Evidence, Appeals Procedure, Road Traffic Accidents
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Damages Assessment Expert Evidence Appeals Procedure Road Traffic Accidents

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Stephen Francis Jones (by Marie Dale, his Litigation Friend)

Claimant/applicant

Brett Daniel Johnson

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for preferring one expert's evidence over another
  2. 2 Whether the assessment of damages for personal injuries was flawed
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to further permission to appeal on grounds relating to future loss of earnings and care costs

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge gave clear and sufficient reasons for his findings, including his preference for the defendant's expert evidence and his assessment of the claimant's pre- and post-accident condition. There was no error in the approach to damages or inferences drawn, and no basis for further permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for further permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order for costs