[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Butcher v Cornwall County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 559 (11 April 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/559.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 559

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE TRURO COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE VINCENT)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Thursday 11 April 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal. The application is made by Miss Rodway QC on behalf of the appellant, Cornwall County Council. The decision which it is sought to appeal is that of His Honour Judge Vincent sitting at the Truro County Court on 25 January 2002, when he gave judgment for the claimant, Mr Colin Butcher, for a sum of damages to be decided by the court based on 90 per cent responsibility for the accident resting with the defendant.
2. The accident, the subject matter of Mr Butcher's proceedings against the council, occurred on 28 August 1997 when, in the course of his employment as a storeman, working near the door of a store cupboard, he was struck on the head by the wooden door when it blew open. The judge found that there was a breach of duty by the council which had caused the injury suffered by Mr Butcher, and that damages should be awarded to him based on 90 per cent of the responsibility resting with the council.
3. The council made a paper application for permission to appeal. That was refused by Latham LJ on 25 February 2002, principally on a point, which is made in some detail in the skeleton argument, as to whether the judge was right in accepting evidence from Mr Butcher in preference to evidence given by one of the council's witnesses, Mr Rose, about the position of a fire safety trailer in relation to the door of the store where the accident occurred. Latham LJ expressed his view of the unlikelihood of that ground of appeal succeeding. He added that he saw no reason to interfere with the judge's decision on contributory negligence.
4. Before us today, Miss Rodway has moved the focus of the submissions away from the first five grounds of appeal, which deal with the fire safety trailer point to the three grounds of appeal in grounds 6 to 12 which encapsulate three points: breach of duty, causation and contributory negligence. She has informed us, after discussion, that she would not intend to pursue as grounds of appeal, paragraphs 1 to 5 inclusive.
5. I am satisfied that her submissions on breach of duty, causation and contributory negligence have a real prospect of succeeding at the trial and on the hearing of an appeal. I would accordingly grant the application limited to grounds 6 to 12 inclusive.
6. LADY JUSTICE HALE: I agree.
Order: Permission to appeal granted limited to grounds 6 - 12 of the grounds of appeal. Costs to be costs in the appeal. Time estimate ½ day.