The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Nationwide Controlled Parking Systems Limited against a decision allowing a personal injury case to proceed before a judge and jury.
The plaintiff, Gheorge Pista, is suing over catastrophic injuries he sustained on 14 November 2009. The judgment says he was working as a clamper in an off-street car park when he was struck on the head with a lump hammer by Gerard Sweeney, whose vehicle he was attempting to clamp.
Pista obtained judgment in default of appearance against Sweeney in January 2012. The remaining matter against him is an assessment of damages. Pista also claims damages from his employer, alleging negligence, breach of duty and breach of contract. Those allegations include claims about work practices, security arrangements, training and supervision. They have not been determined.
The employer argued that its alleged failures were distinct from the assault and that its claims should be heard by a judge sitting alone. It also asked the court to set aside Pista’s notice of trial, which sought a jury hearing for claims against both defendants. The High Court refused that application in July 2015, and the employer appealed.
The Court of Appeal considered the exception in section 1(3)(b) of the Courts Act 1988, which can permit a jury trial where a claim for intentional trespass to the person is joined with another cause of action arising from the same act or omission. The court said Pista could have his assault damages assessed by a jury. It then concluded that his negligence and related claims against the employer were sufficiently connected to the alleged assault because they concerned the same injury and loss.
The court also cited the practical difficulty of having a jury and a judge separately assess damages for the same injuries. It said a unified trial could address the employer’s liability claims and then assess damages, with the trial judge directing the jury on relevant legal issues.
The appeal was dismissed. The ruling decides how the claims may be tried; it does not determine whether the employer is liable or the amount of damages due. The judgment was delivered on 18 March 2016.