I am pleased to be able to tell you about the recent decision in Hamblett v Liverpool Wholesale Flowers Limited, reported on Lexis in favour of the Defendant, represented by my friend and colleague in Chambers, Bill Rankin. It was heard in the Liverpool County Court before Recorder Knifton KC.
The case was a two-day multi-track matter, involving the Claimant’s disputed contention that she had slipped on water and/or flower petals, whilst at the Defendant’s premises, with the result that she sustained a severe injury.
There were various contemporaneous reports of the incident to medical personnel as well as other documents and witness evidence from the Claimant, her husband (who was present, but did not witness the moment of the incident itself), the owner of the Defendant’s undertaking, and a couple of others who were employed or present as customers.
The Defendant’s case, supported by evidence, was that it was an accident caused by the Claimant not looking /being able to see where she was going, because of the way she was carrying flowers in front of her - with the result that when she stepped to the side (unnecessarily) to make way for someone coming towards her she fell over one of the long line of buckets of flowers, set out for customers to inspect, on one side of the locus.
On the morning of trial, the Defendant made an application to adduce further evidence in rebuttal of the Claimant’s claim. This further evidence was documentation undermining the authenticity of an invoice produced by the Claimant, allegedly (and rather prejudicially to the Defendant) found by her husband a few weeks before trial. The invoice produced by the Claimant was purportedly delivered to her/ her husband shortly after the accident by the Defendant’s employee. It allegedly sought the cost of the flowers that she asserted she had damaged in her accident. Her husband supported her case as to the delivery and contents of the invoice. He contended he had paid the invoice for it, although three different sums were suggested for this. The Claimant denied that she had doctored the invoice in any way.
The invoice bore the date 30th May 2018, and the words “Broken Flowers”. The invoice was ripped in such a way as to remove the invoice number. It also bore an old address for the Defendant.
The Defendant’s rebuttal evidence included invoices around the same time as the Claimant’s invoice dated 30th May 2018, showing that those invoices had the new address on for the Defendant and not the old one. Furthermore, a carbon copy of the invoice produced by the Claimant was found by the Defendant showing that (whilst there was no date on it) all other details were identical - but for someone having clearly added a false date (suggesting it was post-accident) and the words “Broken Flowers” to the Claimant’s copy of the invoice. The Defendant’s accounts and banking records showed that the date that actually should have been applied to the Claimant’s invoice would have been in August 2017, when it had been rendered and paid.
The Claimant’s reliance on the invoice she produced was not merely suggestive of a heartless Defendant, as she also manipulated its use to suggest that the Defendant had given false evidence in response to Part 18 Questions, in a dishonest attempt to mislead the court - it having been the Defendant’s response in Part 18 Questions that no flowers were broken in the fall and no invoice was rendered.
After hearing all of the evidence, and amongst other considerations, Recorder Knifton KC concluded the accident occurred as a result of the way the Claimant was carrying the box of flowers in front of her, such that she could not see where she was going and consequently she tripped over one of the flower buckets, which he considered did not constitute a danger /obstruction under the Occupiers‘ Liability Act 1957.
The Judge went on to consider the issue of Fundamental Dishonesty. Whilst finding, as far as injuries were concerned, whilst there were anomalies they were not sufficient to warrant a finding of FD, the Judge determined that the Claimant’s manipulation of evidence relating to the invoice and the ramifications for undermining the Defendant’s defence of the case on liability and the integrity of the Defendant’s main witness were such as to mean the claim was Fundamentally Dishonest, as it “had the potential adversely to affect the Defendant in a very significant way”, and “the claim depended as to a substantial or important part of itself upon dishonesty.”
A copy of the full judgment and a further article on the case can be found on the Civil Litigation website here.
