A judge has expressed her dismay over the two years of litigation and multiple days of trial needed to resolve a claim brought by a trespasser on a railway line.
In Drummond v Keolis Amey Sean Drummond sought damages for breach of duty and/or negligence against the operator of London's Docklands Light Railway after he was struck by a train. Drummond sustained ‘life changing catastrophic head injuries from which he was lucky to survive’. He has ‘enduring severe physical and cognitive impairments’ as well as ‘complex and constant’ needs as a result of his injuries.
The accident happened in March 2019 and came before Mrs Justice Lambert DBE in March 2023 for a trial on liability. Michael Rawlinson KC, for Drummond, sought permission to re-amend the particulars of claim including the account of how Drummond had got on to the track.
Ruling on the issue, the judge found it ‘far more likely’ that Drummond would have side-stepped a gate at the end of the platform rather than go through it, a decision ‘informed by the claimant’s actions before he approached the gate’.
She said: ‘I must record my dismay that it was only on day 4 of a trial which had been listed for several months and after litigation had been ongoing for over two years that this litigation was resolved.
‘I make no comment concerning the progress of the litigation before the application to amend the particulars of claim. No doubt there were difficulties arising from disclosure which made it difficult for the claimant’s team to crystallise its case. However, after the application to amend the pleadings had been made, the case was crying out for a pre-trial review before the trial judge.’
She added that the proposed amendments to the particulars ‘went to the root of the claim’ and a pre-trial review ‘would have saved some costs and no doubt the claimant’s family much stress and anxiety’.
The judge added: ‘Both parties should have ensured that the amendment issue was resolved, or at least case managed, before the beginning of the trial.’
According to the judgment, Drummond, after celebrating the end of his exams with friends, was seen on CCTV walking along platform 1 at Canary Wharf station on the DLR. The incomplete footage showed him walking towards a gate leading onto the track.
He was also seen looking up at the CCTV camera positioned above the gate on more than one occasion and looking behind him along the platform, ‘the inference being [he] was checking that no member of staff was on the platform observing his movements’, the judge said.
The footage does not show how Drummond reached the track. Around 230 metres from the station he reached a round curve under a railway viaduct and was struck by a train.
Following the ruling, Drummond sought to discontinue the claim for damages under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 and/or in negligence, with no order for costs.
In her short judgment approving the discontinuance, Lambert said: ‘There were, in reality, no other viable allegations against the defendant.’
Michael Rawlinson KC and Max Archer, instructed by Fieldfisher, appeared for Drummond; Prashant Popat KC and Angus Withington KC, instructed by DWF, for Keolis Amey Docklands Ltd.
This article is now closed for comment.
4 Readers' comments