EUI Limited (t/a Admiral) v Vaughn Smith
| Judge | Mr Justice Griffiths |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 2803 (KB) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Counsel | Robert Weir Kc |
| Date | 06 November 2024 |
MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
Approved Judgment
Smith v EUI Limited
[2024] EWHC 2803 (KB)
Case No: KA-2023-000101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
HIGH COURT APPEAL CENTRE, ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE
ORDER OF HHJ SAUNDERS DATED 7 DECEMBER 2022; 2 JUNE 2023
COUNTY COURT CASE NO: F15YM639
APPEAL REF: KA-2023-000101
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
6 November 2024
Before :
MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
EUI LIMITED (t/a Admiral)
- and -
Third Defendant / Part
20 Claimant /
Respondent to appeal
VAUGHN SMITH Second Part 20
Defendant / Appellant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Weir KC (instructed by DBTR Legal Services Ltd) for the Appellant
Derek O’ Sullivan KC (written submissions only)
and Paul Higgins (written and oral submissions)
(instructed by Horwich Farrelly Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 14 October 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
Approved Judgment
Smith v EUI Limited
Mr Justice Griffiths:
1. This is an appeal against the refusal of an application to strike out a Part 20 claim or
to enter reverse summary judgment against the Part 20 claimant under CPR Part 24.
There is also an application by the respondent for permission to re-amend the Part 20
Particulars of Claim.
2. The appellant is Mr Vaughn Smith (“Mr Smith”), who prepared a report dated 29
August 2018 (“the Report”) which stated, among other things, that a motorcycle (“the
Motorcycle”), which had been involved in an accident on 17 August 2018, was
“Beyond Economical Repair”. The Motorcycle was a Honda SH125 model, with a
relatively small 125cc engine. Photographs in the papers show that it was shaped like
a scooter, with a floorboard for the driver’s feet to rest on.
3. The motorcyclist (Mr de Souza) in September 2019 sued the driver said to be
responsible for the accident (Mr Claydon). Mr Claydon was the First Defendant. The
motorcyclist also sued the insurers of the Mr Claydon’s car (the Second and Third
Defendants). Of those, the only one I am concerned with is the Third Defendant, EUI
Ltd, which was successful in resisting the applications in the court below and is now
the respondent to this appeal (“EUI”).
4. EUI brought a Part 20 claim against Mr Smith in March 2022. The Part 20 Claim
Form said that the Report was “dishonest”. The case was pleaded in a single
document entitled “Amended Counterclaim / Part 20 Particulars of Claim” dated 8
March 2022 (“the Part 20 Particulars of Claim”). The Part 20 Particulars of Claim
allege that the contact between the driver and the Motorcycle and its rider was
“benign and glancing in nature”, the driver “remaining upright and in control” after
the car had pulled out from a parked position. They say that the Motorcycle “suffered
no significant damage” and remained “driveable”. They allege that the Report was
“created dishonestly, with the intention that the scooter be declared undriveable even
though it was driveable”. They claim against Mr Smith for “the tort of deceit” and for
“the tort of unlawful means conspiracy” with the motorcyclist.
5. Mr Smith applied on 21 June 2022 to strike out the Part 20 claim against him pursuant
to CPR 3.4 and further or alternatively for summary judgment against EUI under CPR
Part 24. That application was heard by His Honour Judge Saunders in the County
Court at Central London on 7 December 2022. In a reserved judgment on 20 April
2023 (“the Judgment”), he dismissed both applications. By an Appellant’s Notice
dated 6 June 2023, Mr Smith appealed. On 18 January 2024, Mr Justice Martin
Spencer refused permission to appeal, giving detailed reasons. Mr Smith renewed his
application for permission at an oral hearing before Mr Justice Mould who granted the
application and gave permission to appeal on 20 March 2024. On 12 August 2024,
EUI filed an application to amend the Part 20 Particulars of Claim which, like the
appeal, has come before me.
6. Mr Smith’s efforts (so far unsuccessful) to get rid of the claims against him at the
outset have meant that there has been no progress beyond the pleadings stage. There
has been no mutual or full disclosure and no exchange of witness statements. No
directions have been given towards a trial of the Part 20 proceedings, which are now
the only proceedings in this matter.
MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
Approved Judgment
Smith v EUI Limited
The Report
7. Mr Smith’s Report was on a two-page form, which he had completed with various
details in order to constitute the Report.
8. The Report was headed: “Evans Harding Engineers (CG) Ltd”, and subtitled
“Consulting engineers & claims assessors”, “Theft & claims investigation service”. It
was signed by Mr Smith in his own name.
9. On an additional sheet which went with the Report, Mr Smith completed an “Expert’s
declaration” which said that he understood that his duty “in providing written reports
and giving evidence is to help the Court” and that he understood that “My report will
form evidence to be given under oath or affirmation”. It referred to the “Protocol for
Instruction of Experts to give Evidence in Civil Claims” in CPR Part 35.
10. The Report was addressed to “Professional and Legal Services Ltd” (“PALS”).
11. The Report stated as follows:
i) The “Accident Date” was given as 17 August 2018. The “Inspection Date”
was given as 29 August 2018 (and the Report was typed the same day).
ii) Mr de Souza (the driver of the Motorcycle) was identified as the “Insured” and
his Motorcycle (the subject of the Report) was identified by make, model,
registration number, colour and other details.
iii) “General Condition” was entered as “Beyond Economical Repair”.
iv) Pre-Accident Value was given as £615. This was based on Glass’s Guide and
took account of three incidents of “Total Loss”, dated in 2013, 2016 and 2017
respectively.
v) “Pre-Accident Damage” was noted as “Scratches Off Side”.
vi) “Impact Severity” was noted as “Moderate”. “Impact Location” was noted as
“To The Near Side”. A birds-eye view of a generic motorcycle showed four
diagonal arrows pointing to that side, along the whole length of the saddle
(about two thirds of the length of the generic motorcycle illustrated).
vii) Static checks were recorded as: steering “Satisfactory”, brakes “Satisfactory”
and “Roadworthy: Undriveable”.
viii) The Report form included space for the listing of “New Materials”, “Repairs”
and “Specialist Charges”. The only section completed was for “New
Materials” into which Mr Smith had inserted seven items, as follows:
a) Centre Stand.
b) NS Belly Pan (i.e. near-side belly pan).
c) NSR Seat Fairing (i.e. near-side rear seat fairing).
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting