Barrow (by his litigation friend and grandfather Hugh Barrow) & Ors. v Merrett & Anor.

Barrow (by his litigation friend and grandfather Hugh Barrow) & Ors. v Merrett & Anor.

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's findings of fact and evaluative assessments were open to him on the evidence, were not shown to be wrong, and his approach to the assessment of lay and expert evidence was proper. The judge was entitled to prefer contemporaneous accounts and found the expert evidence equivocal. There was no error of law or unfairness in the judge's approach or reasoning.

Parties
Appellants: Felix Barrow (by his litigation friend and grandfather Mr Hugh Barrow) & Ors; Respondents: Rosemary Merrett and another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Assessment of Evidence, Standard of Care, Appellate Review
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Road Traffic Accident Assessment of Evidence Standard of Care Appellate Review

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felix Barrow (by his litigation friend and grandfather Mr Hugh Barrow) & Ors

Appellants

Rosemary Merrett and another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law or fact in dismissing the claim for damages for negligence arising from a road traffic accident involving a child pedestrian and a motor vehicle
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly apply the principles in Gestmin SGPS (SA) v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited regarding assessment of witness evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge's findings on the reliability of lay and expert evidence were irrational or inadequately reasoned

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's findings of fact and evaluative assessments were open to him on the evidence, were not shown to be wrong, and his approach to the assessment of lay and expert evidence was proper. The judge was entitled to prefer contemporaneous accounts and found the expert evidence equivocal. There was no error of law or unfairness in the judge's approach or reasoning.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.