Lloyd v John Lewis Partnership [2001] EWCA Civ 1529 (9 October 2001)

Lloyd v John Lewis Partnership [2001] EWCA Civ 1529 (9 October 2001)

The trial judge failed to address the critical question of whether the absence of a fourth man or ladder stabilisation caused or materially contributed to the claimant's injury. The evidence did not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove causation. The judge's decision was set aside and a retrial ordered to properly address the causation issue.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1529
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mark Robert Lloyd; Defendant/respondent: John Lewis Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal After Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Personal Injury, Causation, Procedural Rules for Submissions of No Case to Answer, Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Tort Employment Law Civil Procedure Employer's Liability Personal Injury Causation Procedural Rules for Submissions of No Case to Answer Admissibility of Expert Evidence

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Robert Lloyd

Claimant/appellant

John Lewis Partnership

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal After Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of a fourth man or ladder stabilisation (elephant's feet) caused or materially contributed to the claimant's injury
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge correctly applied the test for causation and material contribution
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing to admit expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to address the critical question of whether the absence of a fourth man or ladder stabilisation caused or materially contributed to the claimant's injury. The evidence did not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove causation. The judge's decision was set aside and a retrial ordered to properly address the causation issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Order of 11th October 2000 set aside
  • Case remitted for trial to continue before His Honour Judge Cooke