## Facts

- Thomas Robertson Duguid Ward was a passenger in a car driven by R. J. (Brynley) James in Germany (May 1962) when the car overturned.
- Ward suffered catastrophic injuries and was left permanently quadriplegic.
- Ward sued James in England for negligence and personal-injury damages; James denied negligence and did not admit damage.
- Ward sought a jury trial; a master ordered trial by jury, and Roskill J affirmed the jury-trial order (July 30, 1963).
- After that order, appellate decisions indicated that serious personal-injury cases should generally be tried by a judge alone.
- About 15 months later, shortly before trial, James sought an extension of time and leave to appeal to overturn the jury-trial order and have the case tried by a judge alone.

## Issues

1. Whether time to appeal should be extended to challenge an interlocutory order for jury trial after substantial delay and acquiescence.
2. Whether a trial judge’s discretion on mode of trial can be treated as “absolute,” or remains subject to appellate supervision.
3. Whether grave personal-injury actions with large and complex damages should generally be tried by a judge alone rather than a jury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal (brought out of time) and declined to interfere with the existing order for a jury trial in this case.
- The court held the defendant’s 15-month delay and conduct amounted to acquiescence, making it unjust to reopen mode of trial on the eve of trial.
- The court stated that appellate review of mode-of-trial discretion is not excluded; a rule of court cannot oust the Court of Appeal’s supervisory jurisdiction.
- Prospectively, the court indicated that serious personal-injury actions should ordinarily be tried by a judge alone, absent exceptional circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- In personal-injury actions, mode of trial is discretionary (not a right to a jury), and the appellate court may intervene where discretion is exercised on a wrong principle or without regard to relevant considerations.
- A party who delays and proceeds on the basis of an ordered mode of trial may be treated as having acquiesced, justifying refusal to extend time or disturb the order.
- For grave personal-injury damages, three considerations support judge-only trial and reasoned awards:
  - Severe-injury awards are often conventional figures derived from experience and comparable cases rather than precise calculation.
  - Awards should display reasonable uniformity so similar cases yield similar outcomes.
  - Predictability of likely awards supports settlement and reduces unnecessary litigation.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal left the jury-trial order intact because the defendant waited too long to challenge it, but it used the case to confirm that catastrophic personal-injury claims should generally be tried by a judge alone to secure more uniform and predictable damages awards.


Ward v. James, [1966] 1 Q.B. 273 (C.A. 1965)