A FOOTBALL tackle during a five-a-side match is at the centre of a multi-million pound legal case after a player was left paralysed with spinal injuries.

Andrew Kerr, 57, was sent flying into a wall when he was challenged by opposing player Ged Willis during a match in Littleborough in February 2005.

Brick

The wall at Littleborough Community sports hall, say his lawyers, was made of brick sheathed in plywood and it was right next to the pitch with no 'run off' gap. Mr Kerr, a local government officer from Milnrow, Rochdale, was travelling at such speed that he didn't have time to put up his hands and protect himself against the fall into the wall.

Injuries
He suffered spinal injuries which have left him tetraplegic and confined to a wheelchair and he subsequently took legal action against Mr Willis claiming millions in compensation. for his injuries. His lawyers argued that because Mr Kerr was so close to the wall, it was 'reasonably foreseeable that he would suffer injury' by being tackled, and claimed that Mr Willis was 'culpable of more than an error of judgement.'

'Fair'
But Mr Willis argued that it was a fair 50/50 challenge for the ball which resulted in a tragic accident, for which he should shoulder no blame. Mr Kerr's claim was dismissed in the High Court on January 9 this year after Judge Holman rejected claims that he had been pushed or otherwise propelled from behind by Mr Willis during the tackle. But Lady Justice Smith, sitting at London's Appeal Court, resurrected Mr Kerr's hopes of a massive payout when she granted him permission to challenge that decision after hearing argument from his barrister, Ian Little.

Appeal
Mr Little claimed that Judge Holman had not considered arguments that it was inherently unsafe to challenge Mr Kerr for the ball at all, given the position he was in at the time. He also argued that the judge had not made clear findings on the facts of the case. Granting permission to appeal on those two grounds, Lady Justice Smith said: "It appears to me that the judge has arguably failed to deal with two important matters.

"It does appear that he has not dealt with Mr Kerr's alternative argument that Mr Willis was negligent in having made any tackle or challenge at all, so close to the wall of the sports hall. "I am also persuaded that it is arguable that the judge ought to have made clear findings of fact as to what actually happened.

'Evidence'

"The judge has dealt with these matters on the basis that the evidence was unclear and that he was unable to say what happened.

"Sometimes this is permissible, but in this case the judge had a good deal of eye-witness evidence. Accordingly I am granting permission to appeal," Lady Justice Smith concluded. The case will now go forward for a full day-long hearing before three Appeal Court judges at a later date, yet to be set.