Bridges v P & N E Murray Ltd, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, May 21, 1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1461
Linked as:
Extract
Bridges v P & N E Murray Ltd, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, May 21, 1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1461
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE QBENF 98/0672/1IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION(Mr Justice Eady) Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2 Friday 21st May, 1999 B e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE ROCH LORD JUSTICE OTTON LORD JUSTICE PILL - - - - - - JULIE ANN BRIDGES (NOW GIBLETT) Appellant - v - P & N E MURRAY LIMITED Respondent - - - - - - (Handed down Transcript of Smith Bernal Reporting Ltd 180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG Tel: 0171 421 4040 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - MR C SHARP (Instructed by Messrs Metcalfes, Bristol BS1 4LY) appeared on behalf of the AppellantMR S SHAW (Instructed by Messrs Sainsbury Hill, Bristol BS1 5HH) appeared on behalf of the Respondent - - - - - - J U D G M E N T (As approved by the Court) - - - - - - ©Crown CopyrightLORD JUSTICE OTTON: The plaintiff appeals against the order of Eady J made on 30 April 1998 when he awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of £25,344.31. THE FACTS:On 13 June 1989 the plaintiff was a front seat passenger in a motor car driven by her then fiancé (later her husband) John Giblett. The car was stationary at a roundabout. On moving forward to enter the roundabout the defendant's vehicle struck the rear of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was travelling. The impact was of a relatively minor nature, occasioning repair costs in the sum of £346.00. A writ was issued in April 1991. Liability was conceded and judgment entered for the husband, by consent on 17 March 1992, in the sum of £2,632.76. It is thus obvious that there has been considerable delay in processing this plaintiff's claim. The medical experts on both sides agreed that the plaintiff suffered a whiplash injury of mild to moderate severity and that by the time of trial the continuing organic disability (if any) was minimal. However, over the years since the accident the plaintiff complained of grossly disabling symptoms which could not be accounted for on an organic or clinical basis, and if genuine, would have to be explained on a psychiatric level. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the accident she suffered from "total body pain" or (as the psychiatrists described it) "somatisation disorder". Her case, if accepted, was that after a relatively moderate car collision, occasioning a typical whiplash she had been effectively totally disabled and prevented from any ordinary domestic and other activities. The diagnosis of somatisation disorder was generally accepted by all the doctors. However, the nature, extent and severity of this psychiatric condition depended to an unusually great extent upon the plaintiff...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
