Graham v Chorley Borough Council

Graham v Chorley Borough Council

The trial judge committed a serious procedural irregularity by failing to put the defendants to their election before entertaining a submission of no case to answer and by applying the wrong standard of proof, thereby depriving the claimant of the opportunity to strengthen her case. This caused injustice and the judgment must be set aside for retrial.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Neina Graham; Defendants/respondents: Chorley Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment After Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; retrial ordered before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Submission of No Case to Answer, Procedural Irregularity, Defective Premises Act 1972, Standard of Proof, Occupier’s Liability
Civil Procedure Tort Law Submission of No Case to Answer Procedural Irregularity Defective Premises Act 1972 Standard of Proof Occupier’s Liability

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neina Graham

Claimant/appellant

Chorley Borough Council

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment After Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to put the defendants to their election before entertaining a submission of no case to answer
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct standard of proof at the close of the claimant’s evidence
  3. 3 Whether the procedural irregularity caused injustice to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge committed a serious procedural irregularity by failing to put the defendants to their election before entertaining a submission of no case to answer and by applying the wrong standard of proof, thereby depriving the claimant of the opportunity to strengthen her case. This caused injustice and the judgment must be set aside for retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; retrial ordered before a different judge.

Orders

  • Judgment of the county court set aside
  • Retrial to be conducted before a different judge