Skipper v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor

Skipper v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor

The appeal was allowed because the appellant's claim for general damages for loss of amenity and for loss of earning capacity had a real prospect of success and should not have been struck out under CPR 24.2. The evidence, though speculative and likely to result in modest damages, was sufficient to justify a trial on the issues of causation and quantum. The proportionality of litigation costs could not justify striking out a claim with real prospects of success.

Parties
Appellant: Skipper; 1st Respondent: Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council; 2nd Respondent: The Governors of Crossley Heath School
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (striking Out of Claim Under CPR 24.2)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Damages, Educational Negligence, Loss of Earning Capacity, General Damages
Tort Law Education Law Negligence Duty of Care Damages Educational Negligence Loss of Earning Capacity General Damages

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

Skipper

Appellant

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

1st Respondent

The Governors of Crossley Heath School

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (striking Out of Claim Under CPR 24.2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim for damages for failure to diagnose and ameliorate dyslexia should be struck out for having no real prospect of success under CPR 24.2
  2. 2 Whether general damages for loss of amenity and damages for loss of earning capacity are recoverable in such circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the appellant's claim for general damages for loss of amenity and for loss of earning capacity had a real prospect of success and should not have been struck out under CPR 24.2. The evidence, though speculative and likely to result in modest damages, was sufficient to justify a trial on the issues of causation and quantum. The proportionality of litigation costs could not justify striking out a claim with real prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike out of claim set aside except as indicated in paragraphs 6 and 9 (certain allegations withdrawn)
  • Case remitted for trial with directions for rigorous case management to ensure proportionality