Binks v Securicor Omega Express Ltd.

Binks v Securicor Omega Express Ltd.

The trial judge erred in law by holding that the claimant could not plead an alternative factual case inconsistent with his own evidence due to the statement of truth requirement. The Civil Procedure Rules allow for such amendments, and the interests of justice required that the claimant be permitted to advance the alternative case based on the defendant's evidence. On the facts as found, the defendant was liable for negligence, but the claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 50%.

Parties
Claimant: Justin Binks; Defendant: Securicor Omega Express Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Employer's Liability, Pleadings, Statements of Truth, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employer's Liability Pleadings Statements of Truth 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justin Binks

Claimant

Securicor Omega Express Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant could advance an alternative factual case inconsistent with his own evidence under the Civil Procedure Rules, specifically Part 22 (Statements of Truth)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow amendment to plead an alternative case based on the defendant's evidence
  3. 3 Assessment of liability and contributory negligence in the circumstances of the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by holding that the claimant could not plead an alternative factual case inconsistent with his own evidence due to the statement of truth requirement. The Civil Procedure Rules allow for such amendments, and the interests of justice required that the claimant be permitted to advance the alternative case based on the defendant's evidence. On the facts as found, the defendant was liable for negligence, but the claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 50%.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Permission to amend the pleadings granted to allow the alternative case based on the defendant's evidence
  • Judgment for the claimant for 50% of the assessed damages (£13,500) due to contributory negligence