Supporting bogus passenger causes genuine claim of driver to be struck out
Stuart YoungGenuine claim of driver valued by the Court at £8.024.74 struck out as a result of supporting a bogus passenger claim pursuant to S57 of Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015
Fundamental Dishonesty found against legal secretary of Bradford Law Firm for bogus passenger claim.
(1) Miss Ruqayya Ali (2) “U” (a minor by his litigation friend Mr Haroon Rashid) (3) Mrs Samina Younis v BFS Group Limited
The Accident
This case involved a road traffic collision on the 19th July 2017 between a vehicle driven by Miss Ali (the First Claimant) and a lorry driven by Mr Cox, an employee of BFS Group Limited (the Defendant). The Defendant admitted at the earliest opportunity their driver had negligently attempted to change lanes when it was unsafe to do so by the presence of the First Claimant’s vehicle, resulting in damage to the her vehicle.
Mr Cox admitted liability at the scene, and when discussing the collision with the First Claimant at the scene, he telephoned the Defendant to report the incident, and was then asked a series of specific questions to enable the anticipated claim to be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The case turned on a single specific question put to Mr Cox at the scene of the accident by the Defendant of how many passengers were in the First Claimant’s car, and Mr Cox at all material times provided the following clear and consistent answer, that there was a single passenger, a young male occupying the front passenger seat, the rear passenger seats were unoccupied.
The Trial
The trial was listed from a remote hearing before DDJ Crossley (Bradford County Court) on 09th October 2020 where James Wilson (Park Square Barristers) was instructed on behalf of the Defendant.
On the day of the trial the Claimant’s Barrister made an application for relief from sanctions for permission to be able to file and serve a witness statement out of time on behalf of the Second Claimant (a minor) by his litigation friend Mr Haroon Rashid (the brother of the First Claimant and husband of the Third Claimant). The trial was adjourned and the aforesaid permission given, and the Claimants solicitors were ordered to pay the Defendant’s wasted trial costs.
The matter was relisted for a further remote trial hearing on 18th December 2020 before Her Honour Judge Ingram when Stuart Young (Park Square Barristers) was instructed to represent the Defendant.
At the relisted trial it was clear that, despite successfully obtaining relief from sanctions on 09th October 2020, no witness statement on behalf of the Second Claimant had been filed & served in accordance with DDJ Crossley’s order, and in the absence of said evidence, the Defendant invited HHJ Ingram to dismiss the Second Claimant’s claim, leaving only the First & Third Claimant’s claims to be determined at the remote trial hearing.
The First Claimant provided her evidence of the collision circumstances, and willingly corroborated her sister in law’s (the Third Claimant) account of her occupying the rear passenger seat (driver’s side) at the material time.
Throughout lengthy cross examination, where numerous inconsistencies in the Claimants’ individual and combined accounts were exposed and challenged, the First Claimant remained adamant that her sister in law (the Third Claimant who was employed as a legal secretary at a Bradford Law Firm at the time) occupied the vehicle and remained in the rear of the vehicle for over 30 minutes whilst she alone discussed the circumstances of the collision with the Defendant’s driver.
The Defendant’s concerns over the veracity of the Claimants’ account of occupancy of the Third Claimant were properly raised in the Defence, in identifying the Defendant’s intention to raise fundamental dishonesty at the trial. The Defendant categorically denied that the Third Claimant was an occupant of the Audi, averring that the claim was tainted by dishonesty and that the Third Claimant was attempting to make a fraudulent claim.
The Defendant put the Claimants on notice that their Counsel will invite the Court to make such a finding, including one of fundamental dishonesty, which will remove the Third Claimant’s costs protection thereby enabling the Defendant to enforce any costs Order awarded in the Defendant’s favour.
Following hearing oral accounts from the parties and considering all the evidence presented at the trial, HHJ Ingram, who had reserved and then handed down her judgment remotely on the 12th January 2021, found (i) that the First Claimant had genuinely been injured and suffered damages and loss, but (ii) that she had dishonestly supported a bogus passenger claim on behalf of her sister in law, the Third Claimant, who did not occupy the Audi at the material time.
Her Honour Judge Ingram Order:
1) The Second Claimant’s claim is dismissed.
2) Upon the court finding that the First Claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in respect of the related claim of the Third Defendant, the First Claimant’s claim is dismissed pursuant to Section 57(2) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. It is recorded that the court would have awarded the sum of £8,028.74 (inclusive) to the First Claimant but for the dismissal of her claim as aforesaid.
3) The Third Claimant’s claim is dismissed.
4) The First Claimant and/or Third Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of the action summarily assessed in the sum of £1,236.26 (£9,265 less the sum recorded in Paragraph 2, above).
5) Upon the court finding that the Third Claimant’s claim is fundamentally dishonest, the costs order against her shall be enforceable pursuant to CPR 44.16.
Article by Stuart Young, Counsel for the Defendant
Stuart Young is a member of our specialist civil fraud team, and is regularly instructed to act on behalf of a number of leading defendant insurers as panel Counsel.
Contact Stuart’s clerks
Francine Kirk on 0113 202 8605
Talia Webster on 0113 213 5207