Garratt v Saxby

Garratt v Saxby

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance speculated without evidence that the claimant was masked by a larger vehicle, and the defendant failed to keep a proper lookout as required by law. The procedural irregularity regarding the Part 36 offer was not serious as the judge was unaware of it and justice did not require the appeal to be allowed on that ground.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Andrew Garratt; Defendant/appellant: Mr Michael Saxby
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Appeal Procedure, Disclosure of Part 36 Offers
Tort Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accident Appeal Procedure Disclosure of Part 36 Offers

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

Parties

Mr Andrew Garratt

Claimant/respondent

Mr Michael Saxby

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in causing the road traffic accident
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Whether the disclosure of a Part 36 offer to the appeal judge was a serious procedural irregularity justifying allowing the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance speculated without evidence that the claimant was masked by a larger vehicle, and the defendant failed to keep a proper lookout as required by law. The procedural irregularity regarding the Part 36 offer was not serious as the judge was unaware of it and justice did not require the appeal to be allowed on that ground.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent awarded costs assessed at £3,000 including counsel's fee