![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Johnson v Ministry of Defence & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 896 (23 May 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/896.html Cite as: [2012] EWCA Civ 896 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM MEDWAY COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE SCARRATT)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
and
LORD JUSTICE PATTEN
____________________
JOHNSON |
Applicant/ Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (2) HOBOURN EATON LIMITED |
Respondents/ Defendants |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondents did not appear and were not represented.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Patten:
"13. ... I have considered the claimant's actual knowledge and found (evaluating all the evidence and especially his oral evidence) that he was aware that he worked at times in noisy environments and was further aware that this could cause some hearing difficulties notwithstanding his view at the time that the onset of old age and occasional build-ups of wax were, perhaps, causative."
He then goes on to say that on that basis in his view the claimant had actual knowledge by 2006 at the latest and it was unnecessary for the judge to consider whether relevant knowledge of the fact described in section 14(1)(b) should be attributed to him under section 14(3) on a constructive basis.
Lord Justice Ward:
Order: Application granted