The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Rice’s appeal against the dismissal of his personal injury action against Alan Muddiman, Tesco Ireland Limited and Joseph Brennan Bakeries. It upheld the High Court’s refusal to adjourn the trial and found no basis to overturn its decisions for the defendants.
Rice had claimed that Muddiman assaulted him three times in 2009 while Rice worked as a security officer at Tesco’s Roselawn Shopping Centre premises in Blanchardstown. He alleged that a blow to his right hip and buttock caused physical injuries and significant psychological harm. He also argued that Tesco had failed to provide a safe workplace and that Brennan’s had failed to supervise Muddiman. Both companies disputed liability; Brennan’s maintained that Muddiman was an independent contractor.
When the case was listed for trial in July 2016, Rice sought an adjournment, citing the absence of medical witnesses and his lack of legal representation. The High Court refused. The Court of Appeal held that the decision was within the trial judge’s discretion, noting that the case had already been ready for hearing in 2015 and that the passage of time risked making a fair trial more difficult. Medical reports were admitted for consideration, but the defendants did not accept their contents as proof that the alleged assault had occurred.
The High Court dismissed the claims against Tesco and Brennan’s after the liability evidence. It found that Rice had not established a prima facie case against Tesco, which had no notice of earlier alleged incidents. As to Brennan’s, the trial judge concluded it could not be held liable for Muddiman’s actions as an independent contractor. The Court of Appeal found no error in either decision.
Rice’s claim against Muddiman proceeded through the evidence and was dismissed after the trial judge rejected Rice’s account of a vicious punch. The judge preferred evidence from Muddiman and witness Keith Partridge that the contact was an open-handed tap during a light-hearted relationship. The Court of Appeal said CCTV footage supported the trial judge’s findings, despite machinery obscuring the precise moment of contact. It held that those findings were supported by credible evidence and could not be overturned on appeal.
Rice also challenged the fairness of the hearing, the handling of his evidence and the costs orders. The appeal court rejected those grounds, concluding that the trial judge had assisted Rice in presenting his case and had not prevented him from calling evidence. It dismissed all of the appeals. The judgment does not state any new costs order by the Court of Appeal.