Pittkin v Watts Blake Bearne & Co Plc & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 720 (15 May 2001)

Pittkin v Watts Blake Bearne & Co Plc & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 720 (15 May 2001)

The Recorder's finding that both defendants' vehicles contributed to the clay on the road was supported by the evidence, and his apportionment of liability was justified. There was no reasonable prospect of success in challenging the liability apportionment. However, the costs order, in light of the settlement offers and conduct, merited further examination.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 720
Parties
Claimant: Kenneth Michael Pittkin; First Defendant/applicant: Watts Blake Bearne & Co PLC; Second Defendant/respondent: Imerys Minerals Limited; Third Defendant: Devon County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on liability apportionment; granted on costs point alone.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Costs Orders, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Apportionment of Liability Costs Orders Contributory Negligence

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

Parties

Kenneth Michael Pittkin

Claimant

Watts Blake Bearne & Co PLC

First Defendant/applicant

Imerys Minerals Limited

Second Defendant/respondent

Devon County Council

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in attributing liability to the first defendant for the presence of clay on the road causing the claimant's accident
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder's apportionment of liability between the defendants was justified on the evidence
  3. 3 Whether the costs order properly reflected the parties' conduct and offers to settle

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder's finding that both defendants' vehicles contributed to the clay on the road was supported by the evidence, and his apportionment of liability was justified. There was no reasonable prospect of success in challenging the liability apportionment. However, the costs order, in light of the settlement offers and conduct, merited further examination.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on liability apportionment; granted on costs point alone.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal on apportionment of liability refused.
  • Permission to appeal on costs point granted.