The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after a car accident. The defendants argued that the claim was fraudulent. The defendant driver had been involved in other collisions found to be fraudulent. The claimant appealed saying that the judges conclusions had not been justified on the evidence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The claim was essentially on the facts: ‘I would for myself, however, be a little wary of saying that, for an appellate court to interfere with a judge’s assessment of the evidence, it must be satisfied that the trial judge was ‘plainly’ or ‘clearly’ wrong – because the Rules do not so provide. Moreover the issue on an appeal such as this does not concern the exercise of a discretion but concerns the judicial evaluation of evidence.’
The judge had insufficient evidence to support his finding. There is no ‘rule’ that a court should follow the money, and the court was wrong to conclude that the accident only made sense as a fraud by the defendant driver if the claimant was also involved.
Lord Neuberger MR, Davis, Treacy LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1367
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Powell v Streatham Manor Nursing Home HL 1935
Where the Judge at the trial has come to a conclusion upon the question which of the witnesses, whom he has seen and heard, are trustworthy and which are not, he is normally in a better position to judge of this matter than the appellate tribunal . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd CA 1956
Proof Standard for Misrepresentation
The court was asked what was the standard of proof required to establish the tort of misrepresentation, and it contrasted the different standards of proof applicable in civil and criminal cases.
Held: The standard was the balance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Litigation Practice
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.465112
