![]() ![]() This matter concerned a separate road traffic accident which took place on 18 July 2014. This is an encouraging decision for defendant practitioners. Identifying a host of inconsistencies in the claimant's evidence, Mr Justice Spencer considered this to be one of those rare cases where the weight of other evidence was such that the original finding of HHJ Main QC be overturned and so dismissed the claim finding it was fundamentally dishonest. Having read the transcripts of the original trial, Mr Justice Spencer remarked that his general impression was that ' the claimant was evasive in his answers, not answering the questions he was asked and avoiding addressing the points that were put to him'. Despite the original trial judge commenting that the claimant had exaggerated the seriousness of his injury to some degree, the claimant was awarded £2,750 for pain and suffering and £400 for the repair to his car. The claimant also conceded at trial that despite presenting a claim for vehicle damage of £1,300, the vehicle had in fact been repaired for 'about £400'. In fact, the driver actually stated that the impact was so minor that he had not been entirely sure whether any contact had been made at all.Īt trial it was demonstrated that the claimant had been involved in at least five previous road traffic accidents rather than the one he disclosed to his medical expert. Neither the claimant nor passenger were injured, nor did they think it possible for any party involved to be injured. The defendants were aided at the first instance trial by the evidence of the driver and passenger of the First Defendant's Ford Transit van who gave clear, and largely compelling, evidence that there had only been a glancing blow between the vehicles. ![]() However, it was specifically denied that there was any reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, given the absence of any significant force in the collision. The defendants accepted that the driver of their vehicle had been negligent, having carried out a u-turn manoeuvre when unsafe to do so. This matter arose out of a road traffic accident which took place on 20 March 2015. Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service & Aviva Insurance Limited Whilst both cases shared a number of similarities, it is worth looking at each case briefly to provide some context to the decisions of the High Court. The two cases were heard together (a tactical decision by DAC Beachcroft) in the High Court as both involved similar issues and the same trial judge, HHJ Main QC, heard both matters separately at first instance at Manchester County Court. Notably in one of the cases, Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service & Aviva Insurance Limited, not only was the claim dismissed on appeal but Mr Justice Spencer also found the claim to be fundamentally dishonest. The judgments provide helpful commentary about Claim Notification Forms and their importance, the weight to attach to inconsistencies in evidence and the application of rules around fundamental dishonesty. Topically, given the whiplash reforms that are currently passing through parliament, Mr Justice Spencer also highlighted the problem that fraudulent or exaggerated whiplash claims have presented for the insurance industry and the courts – a problem which should 'ca use judges in the County Court to approach such claims with a degree of caution'. Both cases were handled by DAC Beachcroft's Motor Fraud team, on behalf of Aviva Insurance Limited, and in both judgments Mr Justice Martin Spencer said that the original trial judge had 'a dopted a much too benevolent approach to evidence from the Claimants', adding the Claimants' evidence ' could be demonstrated to be 'inconsistent, unreliable and, on occasions, downright untruthful''. In two recent appeal cases, heard together in the High Court, the appeal judge overturned the judgments made at first instance and dismissed all personal injury claims. Two separate fraud cases dismissed at the same time on appeal by the High Court
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |