Football coach who was forced to give up work after a nightclub bouncer threw him into the street ‘like a Tom and Jerry cartoon’ wins £112,000 payout
- Lee Jarvis, 40, got hurt during an assault by a doorman at McQueens Nightclub
- Mr Jarvis was thrown in the street ‘like something from a Tom and Jerry cartoon’
A football coach has won £112,000 after damaging his knee when he was thrown into the street from a nightclub ‘like something from a Tom and Jerry cartoon’.
Lee Jarvis, 40, was hurt during an assault by a doorman at McQueens Nightclub in east London’s trendy Shoreditch, in November 2012, with the injury massively disrupting his career.
He was minding his own business having a drink with a friend at the club in Tabernacle Street, east London when a bouncer approached him and he was thrown out for no reason, he said.
He ended up being thrown into the street through a fire exit in what Judge Nigel Gerald branded an ‘unjustifiable assault’.
CCTV footage of the incident showed him being ‘flung out of the nightclub fire door almost like an excerpt from a Tom and Jerry cartoon’, the judge added – before ordering the security firm employing the bouncer – M Zurich Europe Ltd – to shell out £112,000 in damages.
Lee Jarvis, 40, was hurt during an assault by a doorman at McQueens Nightclub in 2012
Mr Jarvis was minding his own business having a drink with a friend at the club in Tabernacle Street, east London
Mr Jarvis, who runs kids’ football training outfit AJ Soccer in Harrow, north London, had to give up ‘hands-on coaching’ due to his injuries and was left with ‘very significant, intrusive and disabling symptoms’, explained his barrister, Adam Samuel.
On top of his physical symptoms he experienced ‘humiliation, distress, indignity and injury to his feelings’, Central London County Court heard.
And to make matters worse he feared the possibility of losing his livelihood altogether due to being subsequently unjustly prosecuted for assault on the basis of the door staff’s version of events.
But after months of anxious waiting Mr Jarvis was acquitted of assault by a magistrate at Highbury Magistrates’ Court in April 2016, retaining his good name.
Mr Jarvis had thrown a punch at one of the bouncers after getting up from the ground, but the magistrate accepted that he was acting in lawful self-defence when he did this.
‘Had he been found guilty that would have been the absolute end of his career,’ said Judge Gerald, adding: ‘That caused him unnecessary stress because he was literally fighting for his livelihood and a job for which he had a great passion’.
The assault by nightclub security staff caused a meniscal tear in Mr Jarvis’ left knee and stopped him doing ‘hands-on coaching’ as well as accelerating degenerative changes in his knee.
Mr Jarvis, who runs kids’ football training outfit AJ Soccer in Harrow, north London, was hurt
As a result he had to take on another colleague to handle training on the pitch, slashing his income and robbing him of his pleasure in coaching.
The court heard Mr Jarvis runs a flourishing football coaching school which is still growing.
But his barrister said that due to his injury ‘at a relatively young age, Mr Jarvis will be prevented from fully undertaking an active role in his chosen career,’ adding that his ordeal also caused him lingering intrusive thoughts.
‘He suffered from a significant adjustment disorder with anxiety, which was acute for six months, and exacerbated temporarily – with the stress of criminal proceedings – giving rise to a total of nine months clinically significant symptoms in total’, said the barrister.
Mr Jarvis sued M Zurich Europe Ltd – which was responsible for security on the door – over the assault which blighted his coaching career.
The security firm was found liable for his injuries at a previous civil trial in April 2019 but until Judge Gerald’s ruling still disputed the amount of compensation claimed.
During the trial of the case at Central London County Court his barrister explained how trouble flared when Mr Jarvis was having a drink with a pal at the club.
‘While the claimant was present in the premises enjoying a drink with a friend, he was approached by one of the doormen and ejected from the premises.
‘As he was complying with the doorman’s instruction to walk to the exit, he was pushed towards a fire door and forcibly thrown down a set of steps, suffering a meniscal tear to the left knee.
‘Immediately following the assault, and while being threatened by the doormen, the claimant threw several punches – found by the judge at the criminal trial to have been in self-defence.’
‘Due to the defendants’ employees’ completely unjustified reporting of the claimant as the ‘guilty party’, the claimant was arrested and charged with assault.’
Mr Jarvis had been ‘compliant with the doormen’s instructions to leave the premises’ and was assaulted when he was propelled down the stairs.
At the criminal trial no evidence was given by the offending doorman on why Mr Jarvis had been thrown out, said his barrister, adding: ‘It was accepted that the Claimant had ‘been pushed out of the fire exit from behind and had grabbed the doorman as he was propelled by the doorway to try and break his fall’.’
Judge Gerald – presiding over the damages trial – said he had seen CCTV footage of the ejection incident which showed Mr Jarvis being chucked out ‘like something out of a cartoon’.
He said he would try the case on the basis that Mr Jarvis acted in self-defence when he lashed out at the doormen, adding: ‘I will proceed on the basis that the defendant and not Mr Jarvis was at fault, and I will proceed on the basis that the defendants acted improperly in assaulting him’.
And he concluded that Mr Jarvis had been on the receiving end of an ‘unwarranted prosecution’ and that he was ‘put through the wringers’ by M Zurich Europe.
‘Mr Jarvis feels deeply wronged by the defendants,’ said the judge.
‘It seems very obvious that the reason he feels so deeply wronged isn’t just because the career he loved in life was taken away from his by an unjustifiable assault – but also because he then had his whole career challenged by an unwarranted criminal prosecution, and then by a trial on liability on an issue which had no proper basis.’
Source: Read Full Article
