Hague v Rexam Glass (Barnsley) Ltd.

Hague v Rexam Glass (Barnsley) Ltd.

The judge did not prevent relevant oral evidence from being called; both parties and their counsel, experienced in HAVS litigation, agreed to the trial structure. The appellant's evidence was inconsistent with HAVS, and no request was made to call the expert at trial. The fresh evidence sought to be introduced on appeal constituted a new case that could have been raised at trial and did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Hague; Respondent: Rexam Glass (Barnsley) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (havs), Expert Evidence, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Fair Trial, Medical Negligence
Personal Injury Employment Law Civil Procedure Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (havs) Expert Evidence Fresh Evidence on Appeal Fair Trial Medical 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hague

Appellant

Rexam Glass (Barnsley) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in determining the preliminary issue without hearing oral medical evidence
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was denied a fair trial by being prevented from calling his expert
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal under Ladd v Marshall principles

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not prevent relevant oral evidence from being called; both parties and their counsel, experienced in HAVS litigation, agreed to the trial structure. The appellant's evidence was inconsistent with HAVS, and no request was made to call the expert at trial. The fresh evidence sought to be introduced on appeal constituted a new case that could have been raised at trial and did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No retrial ordered