![]() |
[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 >> McGeer v McIntosh [2017] EWCA Civ 79 (23 February 2017) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/79.html Cite as: [2017] EWCA Civ 79 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
HHJ RAYNOR QC (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT)
A90LV016
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE
and
LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS
____________________
Collette ![]() ![]() (A Protected Party by her Litigation Friend, Amy Elizabeth Clague) |
Claimant/ Respondent |
|
-and- |
||
Robert ![]() | Defendant/ Appellant |
____________________
Mr Douglas Herbert (instructed by Keoghs Llp) for the Defendant/Appellant
Hearing date: 14 February 2017
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT APPROVED
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE TREACY:
"In the absence of an identifiable error, such as an error of law, or the taking into account of an irrelevant matter, or the failure to take account of a relevant matter, it is only a difference ofview
as the apportionment of responsibility which exceeds the ambit of reasonable disagreement that warrants the conclusion that the court below has gone wrong. In other words, in the absence of an identifiable error, the appellate court must be satisfied that the apportionment made by the court below was not one which was reasonably open to it."
LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE:
LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS: