|Judgments - Dingley v. Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police
As for the view which the Lord President expressed on the second question, it seems to me that he was simply making the point which I think he was entitled to make in the light of his review of the evidence on the first question that it was not enough for the appellant to establish that trauma in general could trigger the onset of MS. Sufficient support had to be found in the evidence on the first question as to whether the onset of symptomatic MS can be caused by a whiplash injury which damages the nerve pathways in the spinal cord to enable the inference to be drawn that the whiplash injury which he sustained in the accident was that kind of injury. The view which he formed as to where the balance lay after assessing the weight of the evidence on the first question led inevitably to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that there was a connection between the injury and the onset of his MS.
I am in no doubt that the decision which the judges in the First Division reached was one which they were entitled to reach on the evidence. I would dismiss the appeal.
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he has given I would also dismiss the appeal.
Lords Parliament Commons Search Contact Us Index
|© Parliamentary copyright 2000||Prepared 7 March 2000|