A dispute over compensation for flooding has culminated in a Court of Appeal warning that justice must not be sacrificed in order to speed up the court process.
The warning came in a case in which the owners of a Staffordshire property, which continued to experience flooding from neighbouring land despite work aimed at alleviating the problem, successfully challenged the county court dismissal of their breach of duty claim.
The case was heard in the county court on the basis of an expert’s report and written statements. The claimants argued that by dealing with the matter in this way, the judge had failed to consider other aspects of the case that could amount to breaches of duty but that could be properly dealt with only by hearing evidence from the claimants.
Allowing the appeal the Appeal Court accepted that appropriate allocation of resources was an over-riding consideration. However, they made it clear that the prime objective must be to deal with cases justly and this must not be sacrified in the interest of allocation of court resources.
They considered that in this case the failure of the judge to hear evidence from the claimants amounted to a “fundamental flaw” and remitted the case for rehearring.
Baddeley and another v Barker Court of Appeal (Ward, Buxton and Mance LJJ) 7 May 2003.
References: PLS News 8/5/03
