An "interesting" day at court this week
Discussion
I had an "interesting" day at the County Court on Thursday. By "interesting", I mean "utter disbelief that a case with no merits whatsoever was allowed to get to a full court hearing". It's a bit of a tale, so bear with me...
I have over 25 years of professional experience with the criminal courts - I've spent countless days waiting around at Magistrates and Crown Courts and countless hours giving evidence in a wide range of different cases, from minor motoring prosecutions, through to serious criminal matters and appeals.
More recently, in my new career in local government regulation, I've become more familiar with the civil level of proof (balance of probabilities) as opposed to the criminal level of proof (beyond all reasonable doubt), and the differences between the two standards. I thought - naively - that I had pretty much seen it all in the courts.
One forum I had never attended, however - until last Thursday - was the County Court. I've always paid my debts and avoided any kind of civil litigation, so the County Court system had always passed me by.
Anyway, on Thursday, I attended the local County Court to support my Stepson who had been summonsed to defend a claim for compensation from a driver who claimed that he had caused an accident which led to her receiving whiplash injuries. To be clear - I wasn't a witness - I was there to metaphorically "hold his hand" and to give some him moral support as he'd never been inside a court before.
The first he heard about this claim was around 12 months ago when an investigator from one of his previous motor insurers contacted him to ask him about an accident he had allegedly been involved in in June 2012. He was very surprised to hear this allegation - he's never been involved in an accident of any kind and he had no recollection of an accident in June 2012. When the investigator gave him the time and date of the alleged accident, he checked his records with his employer at the time and his timesheet showed quite clearly that he was at work at the time, several miles from where the accident allegedly happened.
He had what I would refer to as a rock solid alibi. I discussed it with him at length and knowing him very well (he'd definitely tell me if it had happened) it was clear that this was either a case of mistaken vehicle identity, or a completely fraudulent claim. Either way, it seemed clear it wasn't going anywhere.
A couple of weeks later, the insurance investigator visited him and took a detailed statement from him in which he stated quite clearly that he had never had an accident, that he was at work at the time of the accident, that his work records proved he was at work, and that he'd never even heard of the road where the accident had happened. A conversation with the investigator revealed that the claimant - a local woman - alleged that he had overtaken her Fiat Punto at very high speed on a residential road, and then collided with her offside, forcing her to stop, knocking off her wing mirror and causing extensive damage to the offside of her car. She had, allegedly, received very serious whiplash injuries in the accident from which she was still suffering - apparently her injuries have prevented her from playing rounders and she now struggles to wash her hair...
The investigator told my Stepson that he had nothing to worry about and that they would likely withdraw the claim. I thought this was a reasonable assumption too.
The claim, however, didn't go away. Over the next few months, he was contacted on a number of occasions by his previous insurance company asking for further evidence and clarification. They wanted a statement from his previous employer, copies of his employment contract showing his contracted hours, photographs of his car, further statements, a photograph showing his appearance and the clothes he was wearing when he worked at his previous employer. It was becoming an embuggerance of the highest order over something which he clearly hadn't been involved in. As a young lad with no experience of these matters, he was, understandably, becoming quite stressed by the whole experience. Although his insurance company's legal team were doing their best to defend the case, he was feeling more and more like an accused criminal, which was (although he wouldn't admit it) starting to really upset him.
My view was still, however, that the solicitors representing the female driver were one of these "no win no fee" "have you had an accident in the last 3 years" outfits and that they were just trying it on. The matter was listed for a hearing at the County Courts, but I was still of the opinion that they would withdraw their case before the hearing - a suspicion which was strengthened when, the week before the case, they contacted my Stepson's insurers to say that they would settle for £1,000. It was bloody obvious they were trying it on! There was no way they'd go to a hearing!
All credit to his insurers - it would have been easier and cheaper for them to send out a cheque for £1,000 than it would to defend the case in the court, but they stuck by my Stepson and paid for a barrister to represent them (and him) at court. An excellent barrister, by the way.
So we rocked up at court on Thursday, fully expecting the claimant to fail to turn up or for the case to be dropped or (knowing what the criminal courts are like) to wait around all day and then the case be adjourned. We met with the barrister who was extremely well prepared and gave some very sound advice to my Stepson about how to answer questions in court. Unbelievably, the claimant had turned up with her solicitor and although the court was block-booked, we went in first - on time!
The courtroom was very small - not much bigger than my lounge - and the matter was heard by a District Judge. We sat and listened to the woman's evidence which was absolutely full of inconsistencies. It was absolute rubbish. The description of the accident was so extreme that I was amazed anyone had survived. The photographs of the damage to the punto, however, showed, well, - no damage whatsoever other than part of a rubbing strip missing from the offside. Her description of the offending vehicle and driver were inconsistent with the description of my Stepson and the medical evidence of her "injuries" were completely rubbished by our barrister who pointed out that, despite claiming that she had visited her GP and been given painkillers following the accident, she had, in fact, visited her doctor with a urinary tract infection and been prescribed antibiotics. It also revealed a history of drug use, heroin addiction and cannabis dependency at the time of the accident...
My Stepson then gave his evidence - he wasn't there, he was at work, it wasn't him and he had documents to prove he wasn't there at the time.
The claimant's solicitor tried his best to rubbish his evidence. "It was you, wasn't it?" was pretty much his only line of questioning and he answered the questions very well. At one point it descended into farce when the solicitor for the claimant pointed out that my stepson works as a mechanic and - because he is required to test drive cars as part of his job - he could well have been driving along that road and been involved in the accident "don't you agree?" Until my Stepson pointed out that he only ever test drives customers' cars and there would never be any reason to test drive his own car whilst he was working.
After hearing all the evidence, the DJ asked for some time to consider everything she had heard. She was out for more than an hour, which worried us a little. It needn't have.
She gave a lengthy narrative judgement. She stated at the beginning that she had two questions to answer. firstly, did the accident happen? And secondly - if it did happen - was my Stepson the driver involved in the accident?
She then systematically destroyed the claimant's case, pointing out a myriad of inconsistencies in her evidence (including a couple which even our barrister had missed) and concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the accident did not happen. Although she didn't then have to make any further judgement, she went on to further destroy her case by pointing out all the inconsistencies in the evidence that my Stepson was involved. She didn't miss a thing and although her judgement was delivered in a very professional manner, it was clear that she was very annoyed that a case with so little merit had gone as far as a full hearing.
Then came the most annoying part of proceedings - costs. Our side argued that this had been a completely dishonest and fraudulent claim and that all costs should be awarded against the claimant (a no-brainer in my view). The claimant's solicitor argued that it was not fraudulent - she had just made a mistake and that each side should therefore cover their own costs. Unbelievably, the Judge accepted this argument and although she made an order of costs against the claimant, she also agreed that this order would not be enforced, so, in effect, each side has had to cover their own costs. I discussed this with our barrister afterwards and she stated that it was because the claimant was on benefits and that there was no likelihood of ever getting any costs out of her, they effectively called it "quits" at the end of the hearing. There is a legal term for the Judge's order, but it's slipped my mind.
We were, obviously, very relieved by the judgement, but having thought about it for the last couple of days, it was, in reality, the only decision the DJ could have made. The accident, after all, simply never took place and my Stepson was nowhere near the alleged scene at the time.
It seems absolutely unbelievable that this matter went as far as it did. Surely someone, somewhere on the claimant's side would have seen they had no chance of success? And I find it even more unbelievable that there is no recourse for costs against the solicitors representing such a spurious and false claim. I know their position is that they are representing a client and acting on their instructions, but this falsehood cost my Stepson's insurers more to defend than it would have done to just pay the claim (good on them for defending it!). It also cost him time and money to defend and caused him a considerable amount of stress and anxiety. But he cannot even claim his court expenses for the day as he was a defendant.
Still, let's hope her urinary tract infection has cleared up, eh?
I have over 25 years of professional experience with the criminal courts - I've spent countless days waiting around at Magistrates and Crown Courts and countless hours giving evidence in a wide range of different cases, from minor motoring prosecutions, through to serious criminal matters and appeals.
More recently, in my new career in local government regulation, I've become more familiar with the civil level of proof (balance of probabilities) as opposed to the criminal level of proof (beyond all reasonable doubt), and the differences between the two standards. I thought - naively - that I had pretty much seen it all in the courts.
One forum I had never attended, however - until last Thursday - was the County Court. I've always paid my debts and avoided any kind of civil litigation, so the County Court system had always passed me by.
Anyway, on Thursday, I attended the local County Court to support my Stepson who had been summonsed to defend a claim for compensation from a driver who claimed that he had caused an accident which led to her receiving whiplash injuries. To be clear - I wasn't a witness - I was there to metaphorically "hold his hand" and to give some him moral support as he'd never been inside a court before.
The first he heard about this claim was around 12 months ago when an investigator from one of his previous motor insurers contacted him to ask him about an accident he had allegedly been involved in in June 2012. He was very surprised to hear this allegation - he's never been involved in an accident of any kind and he had no recollection of an accident in June 2012. When the investigator gave him the time and date of the alleged accident, he checked his records with his employer at the time and his timesheet showed quite clearly that he was at work at the time, several miles from where the accident allegedly happened.
He had what I would refer to as a rock solid alibi. I discussed it with him at length and knowing him very well (he'd definitely tell me if it had happened) it was clear that this was either a case of mistaken vehicle identity, or a completely fraudulent claim. Either way, it seemed clear it wasn't going anywhere.
A couple of weeks later, the insurance investigator visited him and took a detailed statement from him in which he stated quite clearly that he had never had an accident, that he was at work at the time of the accident, that his work records proved he was at work, and that he'd never even heard of the road where the accident had happened. A conversation with the investigator revealed that the claimant - a local woman - alleged that he had overtaken her Fiat Punto at very high speed on a residential road, and then collided with her offside, forcing her to stop, knocking off her wing mirror and causing extensive damage to the offside of her car. She had, allegedly, received very serious whiplash injuries in the accident from which she was still suffering - apparently her injuries have prevented her from playing rounders and she now struggles to wash her hair...
The investigator told my Stepson that he had nothing to worry about and that they would likely withdraw the claim. I thought this was a reasonable assumption too.
The claim, however, didn't go away. Over the next few months, he was contacted on a number of occasions by his previous insurance company asking for further evidence and clarification. They wanted a statement from his previous employer, copies of his employment contract showing his contracted hours, photographs of his car, further statements, a photograph showing his appearance and the clothes he was wearing when he worked at his previous employer. It was becoming an embuggerance of the highest order over something which he clearly hadn't been involved in. As a young lad with no experience of these matters, he was, understandably, becoming quite stressed by the whole experience. Although his insurance company's legal team were doing their best to defend the case, he was feeling more and more like an accused criminal, which was (although he wouldn't admit it) starting to really upset him.
My view was still, however, that the solicitors representing the female driver were one of these "no win no fee" "have you had an accident in the last 3 years" outfits and that they were just trying it on. The matter was listed for a hearing at the County Courts, but I was still of the opinion that they would withdraw their case before the hearing - a suspicion which was strengthened when, the week before the case, they contacted my Stepson's insurers to say that they would settle for £1,000. It was bloody obvious they were trying it on! There was no way they'd go to a hearing!
All credit to his insurers - it would have been easier and cheaper for them to send out a cheque for £1,000 than it would to defend the case in the court, but they stuck by my Stepson and paid for a barrister to represent them (and him) at court. An excellent barrister, by the way.
So we rocked up at court on Thursday, fully expecting the claimant to fail to turn up or for the case to be dropped or (knowing what the criminal courts are like) to wait around all day and then the case be adjourned. We met with the barrister who was extremely well prepared and gave some very sound advice to my Stepson about how to answer questions in court. Unbelievably, the claimant had turned up with her solicitor and although the court was block-booked, we went in first - on time!
The courtroom was very small - not much bigger than my lounge - and the matter was heard by a District Judge. We sat and listened to the woman's evidence which was absolutely full of inconsistencies. It was absolute rubbish. The description of the accident was so extreme that I was amazed anyone had survived. The photographs of the damage to the punto, however, showed, well, - no damage whatsoever other than part of a rubbing strip missing from the offside. Her description of the offending vehicle and driver were inconsistent with the description of my Stepson and the medical evidence of her "injuries" were completely rubbished by our barrister who pointed out that, despite claiming that she had visited her GP and been given painkillers following the accident, she had, in fact, visited her doctor with a urinary tract infection and been prescribed antibiotics. It also revealed a history of drug use, heroin addiction and cannabis dependency at the time of the accident...
My Stepson then gave his evidence - he wasn't there, he was at work, it wasn't him and he had documents to prove he wasn't there at the time.
The claimant's solicitor tried his best to rubbish his evidence. "It was you, wasn't it?" was pretty much his only line of questioning and he answered the questions very well. At one point it descended into farce when the solicitor for the claimant pointed out that my stepson works as a mechanic and - because he is required to test drive cars as part of his job - he could well have been driving along that road and been involved in the accident "don't you agree?" Until my Stepson pointed out that he only ever test drives customers' cars and there would never be any reason to test drive his own car whilst he was working.
After hearing all the evidence, the DJ asked for some time to consider everything she had heard. She was out for more than an hour, which worried us a little. It needn't have.
She gave a lengthy narrative judgement. She stated at the beginning that she had two questions to answer. firstly, did the accident happen? And secondly - if it did happen - was my Stepson the driver involved in the accident?
She then systematically destroyed the claimant's case, pointing out a myriad of inconsistencies in her evidence (including a couple which even our barrister had missed) and concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the accident did not happen. Although she didn't then have to make any further judgement, she went on to further destroy her case by pointing out all the inconsistencies in the evidence that my Stepson was involved. She didn't miss a thing and although her judgement was delivered in a very professional manner, it was clear that she was very annoyed that a case with so little merit had gone as far as a full hearing.
Then came the most annoying part of proceedings - costs. Our side argued that this had been a completely dishonest and fraudulent claim and that all costs should be awarded against the claimant (a no-brainer in my view). The claimant's solicitor argued that it was not fraudulent - she had just made a mistake and that each side should therefore cover their own costs. Unbelievably, the Judge accepted this argument and although she made an order of costs against the claimant, she also agreed that this order would not be enforced, so, in effect, each side has had to cover their own costs. I discussed this with our barrister afterwards and she stated that it was because the claimant was on benefits and that there was no likelihood of ever getting any costs out of her, they effectively called it "quits" at the end of the hearing. There is a legal term for the Judge's order, but it's slipped my mind.
We were, obviously, very relieved by the judgement, but having thought about it for the last couple of days, it was, in reality, the only decision the DJ could have made. The accident, after all, simply never took place and my Stepson was nowhere near the alleged scene at the time.
It seems absolutely unbelievable that this matter went as far as it did. Surely someone, somewhere on the claimant's side would have seen they had no chance of success? And I find it even more unbelievable that there is no recourse for costs against the solicitors representing such a spurious and false claim. I know their position is that they are representing a client and acting on their instructions, but this falsehood cost my Stepson's insurers more to defend than it would have done to just pay the claim (good on them for defending it!). It also cost him time and money to defend and caused him a considerable amount of stress and anxiety. But he cannot even claim his court expenses for the day as he was a defendant.
Still, let's hope her urinary tract infection has cleared up, eh?
cptsideways said:
At what point would a case of of PCJ become viable? though I assume this was a civil matter does it not apply?
I think that the claimant's "fall back" position would be that the accident did take place, but that she may have made a mistake in writing down the offending car's registration number.I cannot see a PCJ or perjury charge getting past the CPS under those circumstances.
We know it was a fraudulent claim and she definitely knows it was a fraudulent claim. The civil court didn't go that far - they just said it didn't happen and I don't think for one minute that the criminal courts would accept that this was - beyond all reasonable doubt - a fraudulent claim.
C'est la vie.
The costs decision is likely to reflect the Jackson reforms which were implemented in April 2013. Whilst the 'accident' predates this, the fact your stepson only heard about the claim recently suggests that it was started post-Jackson.
As such, it will most likely have been subject to qualified one-way costs shifting, meaning that your stepson/his insurer, as the defendant(s), will generally be ordered to pay the costs of a successful claim but, subject to certain exceptions, will not recover their own costs when they successfully defend the claim.
Having said that, the exceptions do include where the claim is found to be "fundamentally dishonest" or where the case is struck out due to it having no reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings. As you say, the relevant threshold is the balance of probabilities and I would have hoped, based on your account, the Judge would have at least found the latter, albeit I appreciate more would have been said in court than your post covers.
I am pleased to see the outcome though, as when I started reading your post I was fearing for an even more unjust outcome!
Also, was it definitely a solicitor representing the claimant, or might it have been counsel? Trial would normally involve the latter, who may have also been instructed on a no win, no fee basis.
As such, it will most likely have been subject to qualified one-way costs shifting, meaning that your stepson/his insurer, as the defendant(s), will generally be ordered to pay the costs of a successful claim but, subject to certain exceptions, will not recover their own costs when they successfully defend the claim.
Having said that, the exceptions do include where the claim is found to be "fundamentally dishonest" or where the case is struck out due to it having no reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings. As you say, the relevant threshold is the balance of probabilities and I would have hoped, based on your account, the Judge would have at least found the latter, albeit I appreciate more would have been said in court than your post covers.
I am pleased to see the outcome though, as when I started reading your post I was fearing for an even more unjust outcome!
Also, was it definitely a solicitor representing the claimant, or might it have been counsel? Trial would normally involve the latter, who may have also been instructed on a no win, no fee basis.
I'm not sure whether he was a solicitor or not. He may well have been Counsel.
There was certainly a discussion over the question of whether the claim was "fundamentally dishonest", but the question as to whether the claim should have been brought in the first place was not asked in court.
There was certainly a discussion over the question of whether the claim was "fundamentally dishonest", but the question as to whether the claim should have been brought in the first place was not asked in court.
Reg Local said:
medical evidence of her "injuries" were completely rubbished by our barrister who pointed out that, despite claiming that she had visited her GP and been given painkillers following the accident, she had, in fact, visited her doctor with a urinary tract infection and been prescribed antibiotics.
Quite literally taking the p...
t on!Richie Slow said:
It's a shame that the scumbag won't get her comeuppance this time.....
Oh I dunno, each morning she (eventually) wakes up, she'll still be a pox ridden oxygen stealing litigation losing skank. And it will all be "Thatchers fault, yeah?"
Also, good job OP, still some things worth fighting for.
Reg Local said:
I think that the claimant's "fall back" position would be that the accident did take place, but that she may have made a mistake in writing down the offending car's registration number.
Making a typo when writing down the ref might be considered an acceptable error to make here and not in itself evidence of an attempt to deceive, but when it's combined with her being adamant that the collision was more serious than the photographic evidence she then supplied would suggest? I'd be spitting mad if this happened to me and the clearly lying chancer who'd dragged me through it all got away with nothing more than having their evidence rubbished by the judge. What's to stop them trying it on with another innocent victim who isn't so willing to defend their position all the way?
twister said:
I'd be spitting mad if this happened to me and the clearly lying chancer who'd dragged me through it all got away with nothing more than having their evidence rubbished by the judge. What's to stop them trying it on with another innocent victim who isn't so willing to defend their position all the way?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff