[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 >> Nestor v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 437 (7 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/437.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 437

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND PERMISSION TO
RELY ON FURTHER EVIDENCE

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday, 7th March 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: This is an application for permission to appeal from the decision of Mr Recorder Belben, sitting in Bristol County Court, who, on 12th December 2000, dismissed the applicant's claim.
2. The applicant was employed as a clerical assistant at the Charlotte Keel Health Centre on 11th November 1996 when she sustained, so she says, an accident because the back rest of her chair tilted backwards and she suffered a significant injury to her neck. She had begun to work for the Trust on 28th October 1996 and had initially been employed in the reception area on the ground floor. On Monday 4th November 1996 she was instructed to work upstairs and on the following day she had an induction day.
3. On Wednesday 6th November she began to be employed in the computer room. There were two other chairs in that room, one for Mrs Richards who was employed full time, and one for Mrs Downer. They each had a desk and a computer. The chairs were different in colour. There was a brown chair initially for the claimant and an orange chair for Mrs Downer, who was at that time off sick. The lady who was in immediate charge was Mrs Watson who came into the room, as the judge found, each afternoon and used Mrs Downer's vacant work station. On that day, or the following day, the claimant complained of discomfort, so the judge found, in relation to the chair she used so Mrs Watson invited her to use the orange chair and the two chairs were exchanged.
4. On 11th November Mr Edwards was appointed as general administrator and took over his duties, Mrs Watson having covered that post while it was vacant prior to his appointment. She advised him of the problems that had arisen such as they were in relation to the chair. Mr Edwards found that the claimant was using the orange chair not properly adjusted, and he adjusted it. Mr Edwards then spoke to Jess Dougal, the community association manager, and said that the chair problem, such as it was, had been resolved. On 5th December Mr Edwards saw the claimant in relation to certain problems with her work. She said she still had problems with the orange chair and complained at that stage of backache and, as the judge found, he gave her his chair and put the brown one in the health visitors' section. He put the orange chair back in Mrs Downer's position.
5. On 31st December 1996, because of the complaint which had been made by the claimant to Mr Edwards on 5th December, Nurse Quinn of the occupational health section looked at the work station. Her evidence was that there was no complaint made to her at that stage of any incident on 11th November. At the Christmas party that year the claimant was observed by Mrs Watson to be wearing a surgical collar. Mrs Richards, to whom I have already referred, occasionally used the brown chair of which the claimant had originally made complaint and said that she had experienced no problem with it. She said she was unaware of any incident on 11th November but said the claimant later told her of back problems.
6. The judge in those circumstances found that the brown chair did not give rise to any problems. He found that the claimant was not a satisfactory witness. He said if there had been an accident it would have been seen by Mrs Richards; that would be because of the evidence of the complainant. She said that Mrs Richards had said she was to report to Mrs Watson - she did so - and she was then told to exchange her chair with Mrs Downer's chair. That was not the evidence which the judge accepted. He accepted the evidence which came from those other witnesses. She said in evidence that she told Mr Edwards on 5th December what had happened to her and that he refused to let Nurse Quinn see the brown chair. That, again, was not accepted by the judge. She said that Mr Edwards examined the brown chair and found that it could partially collapse. The judge said there was some evidence that the back went down but not in any way similar to that about which the claimant complained.
7. In the result the judge came to the conclusion that he was not satisfied there had been any accident of the type complained of on 11th November 1996. There may well have been some incident such as to give rise to the symptoms of which the claimant complained. Whether there was such an incident or whether those symptoms had an origin in the general health of the complainant, it was not necessary for the judge to decide. All he had to decide was whether or not they were attributable to the accident of which the claimant complained. He found, and was entitled to find, on the evidence before him that they were not.
8. The claimant seeks permission to appeal to this court. She did not seek permission until 2nd October 2001, some nine months after the decision by the judge. That is long after the period which this court would normally regard as acceptable in relation to an application of this kind. In order to extend time it would be necessary to have some good reason to do so. I have heard no reason at all for that period of delay. Even if it could be accounted for, I can find nothing in what I have heard this morning which would persuade me that this applicant has any real prospect of success were she granted permission to appeal.
9. She points out, and is entitled to point out, that the doctors who have considered her case say her symptoms are consistent with the injury of which she complains on 11th November. No doctor was present on that day, and the judge had to decide whether or not such an incident happened on the evidence which was placed before him. He did so decide.
10. I can see no reason to believe that the Court of Appeal would interfere in any way with his decision if the matter were fully ventilated. Accordingly, this application for permission to appeal is dismissed.
Order: Application dismissed