A lorry driver has fought off an Appeal Court bid to strip him of part of a £108,000 damages award for assault.
John Hoath 54, of Summersales Farm, London Road, Crowborough, was awarded the money by a judge against a leading firm of solicitors. He was injured in March, 1994, during an attempt by men acting on behalf of Cripps Harries Hall, of Tunbridge Wells, to pull down a sign put up by Mr Hoath which criticised the law firm.
In November, 1998, Deputy High Court Judge Nigel Wilkinson ruled one of those involved in removing the sign was "responsible in law for an unjustified assault, technically a battery" upon Mr Hoath, who suffered neck injuries with long term consequences.
Mr Hoath, who appeared in court wearing a neck brace, was awarded £108,460 damages by the judge who said his injuries had seriously interfered with his work as a lorry driver.
At the Appeal Court, Cripps Harries Hall challenged the amount of the damages pay-out, in particular the £90,000 Mr Hoath was awarded for his past and future loss of earnings. But Lord Justice Kennedy told the court: "There is no substance in the grounds of appeal."
There was also no reason to question the approach taken by Deputy Judge Wilkinson. The appeal judge added: "It seems plain to me that the judge was entitled to proceed on the basis that it was these symptoms which prevented him from returning to work as a lorry driver."
In his original ruling, Judge Wilkinson had referred to Mr Hoath as an "obsessive and embittered" man whose family had instructed Cripps Harries Hall for many years until the relationship soured. Invoices submitted to Mr Hoath by the firm remained unpaid and judgements were obtained for the sums claimed.
"His behaviour during 1992, 1993 and 1994 caused, and was intended to cause, considerable irritation and concern to the defendant firm," Judge Wilkinson said at the time. But the firm had wrongly opted for a "self-help solution" to the presence of the sign, and Mr Hoath had been assaulted during the ensuing fracas, he ruled.
Cripps Harries Hall were ordered to pay the costs of the unsuccessful appeal.
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article