Susan Richards v Edna Morris
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Martin Spencer |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: B21YJ808 (45/2016) |
| Date | 24 May 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 1289 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Manchester District Registry
Bridge Street West
Manchester M60 9DJ
Mr Justice Martin Spencer
Case No: B21YJ808 (45/2016)
Mr Paul Sweeney (instructed by 1 Law Solicitors) for the Claimants/Respondents
Mr Daniel Wood (instructed by DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd) for the Defendant/Appellant
Hearing dates: 16 March, 19 March and 26 March 2018
Judgment Approved
Introduction
Pursuant to permission granted by Mr Justice Burton on 12 October 2016, the Appellant/Defendant appeals against the judgment and order of HHJ Main QC dated 11 April 2016.
By that order, HHJ Main QC granted judgment to each of the Claimants and awarded them £2,500 each by way of general damages for the personal injuries sustained in an accident on 18 July 2014. By her Notice of Appeal dated 29 April 2016, the Defendant seeks dismissal of the claim with findings of fundamental dishonesty, alternatively an order that the judgment and order of HHJ Main QC be set aside and a re-trial ordered.
The facts
The First Claimant was born on 23 June 1967 and the Second Claimant was born on 12 May 1971. On 18 July 2014, when the Claimants were respectively aged 47 and 42, they were travelling together in a Suzuki Wagon R motorcar with the First Claimant the driver and the Second Claimant the front seat passenger along St Paul's Road, Birkenhead, Wirral. As they reached the junction with New Chester Road, the Defendant was immediately ahead of them driving a Ford Fiesta motorcar and intending to turn right along New Chester Road where the traffic had the right of way. The Defendant pulled partly out into New Chester Road but could not turn right because of traffic coming from her left and then found herself partially blocking the passageway of traffic coming from her right. She put her car into reverse and, failing to notice the Suzuki car behind her, reversed at a slow speed and collided with the Suzuki. Liability is not and has never been in dispute for this accident.
Three days after the accident, on 21 July 2014, the First Claimant attended her General Practitioner who made the following note:
“Problem other: road vehicle accidents (first)
History: was involved in a RTA few days ago, c/o shoulder pains
Car reversed when stationary
Wearing seat belt
No external trauma
No bleeding/fluid from nose/mouth, no loc
Examination: no obvious external injuries
Slight tenderness trapezius b/l, FROM
Comment adv re analgesia
Review in 2–3 days/sooner if any worse/any concerns
Review sos”
Although the First Claimant was a frequent attender upon her GP, and attended again on 31 July 2014, she did not seek any further medical help in relation to injuries sustained in the index accident.
So far as the Second Claimant, Mr McGrann, is concerned he appears not to have consulted his GP at all in relation to the index accident.
The Claims Notifications Forms
Both Claimants sought legal assistance from a firm of solicitors, 1 Law Solicitors of Birkenhead, Merseyside, who issued Claim Notification Forms (“CNFs”) on behalf of each Claimant on 5 August 2014. Each of those forms were endorsed by a statement of truth, not signed by the Claimants themselves but by Mr Gary M Laiolo, a claims manager with 1 Law who signed on the Claimants' behalf. The endorsement stated:
“I am the Claimant's legal representative. The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form are true. I'm duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement.”
I interpose to make two comments about CNFs generally. Firstly, CNFs are important documents because not only are they the first notification of a claim to the potential defendant's insurer in low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents where the damages sought are between £1,000 – £25,000 but also they will often be the basis for early settlement of the claim. Thus, a claim may go no further than the submission of a CNF and an offer of settlement based on it, which is accepted.
Secondly, and linked to the first point, the statement of truth is thus important as it means, or should mean, that the insurer can rely on the accuracy of the contents of the CNF in assessing the damages and any offer of compensation to be made. Where the statement of truth is signed by a claims manager on the claimants' behalf, as here, the insurer trusts the claims manager and, through him or her, the firm of solicitors to have taken proper instructions and to have verified the accuracy of the contents of the document. It is worth remembering the provisions of the practice direction to Part 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules which states:
“3.8 Where a legal representative has signed a statement of truth, his signature will be taken by the court as a statement –
1) that the client on whose behalf he has signed and has authorised him to do so,
2) that before signing he had explained to the client that in signing the statement of truth he would be confirming the client's belief that the facts stated in the document are true
3) that before signing he had informed the client of the possible consequences to the client if it should subsequently appear that the client did not have an honest belief in the truth of those facts.”
CPR 32.14 , relating to false statements, provides that “proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.”
For the above reasons, I cannot associate myself with the comment made by HHJ Main QC at paragraph 42 of his judgment where, referring to CNFs, he said:
“I do not find them reliable documents. They are done shortly. They are all very summarised. They are simplistic documents which do not permit there to be details of clinical presentation that can be relied upon by a trial judge and I just ignore them.”
On the contrary, in my view they are important documents: they provide the basis for possible proceedings for contempt of court, as seen, and they provide valuable information at an early stage in the litigation process. Endorsed with a statement of truth, as they are, CNFs should be reliable documents and should be taken seriously.
Turning to the CNFs in this case, the one for the First Claimant, Mrs Richards, set out in Section B the injury and medical details:
“ What type of injury was suffered? Soft tissue.
Please provide a further brief description of the injuries sustained as a result of the incident.
Injuries to neck, middle back and across chest from seat belt.
… 1.4 Has the Claimant sought any medical attention? Yes
If yes on what date did they first do so? 21/07/2014.”
It was confirmed that no medical professional had recommended the First Claimant to undertake any rehabilitation, that the First Claimant was claiming damage to her own vehicle and, at Section G, brief details of the circumstances of the accident were provided. At Section K, there is the opportunity for the Claimant to state why she believes that the Defendant was responsible for the accident. Section L provides notification of funding arrangements.
In relation to the Second Claimant, Mr McGrann, his CNF indicated that the injuries sustained were “injuries to neck and back”. Again, it was indicated that the Second Claimant had sought medical attention on 2 August 2014, which does not appear to be true. There is no reference to such an attendance in Mr McGrann's medical records. In cross-examination at trial, there was the following exchange:
“Q: You never attended a GP about this incident or any alleged symptoms from it did you?
A: No
Q: Why, in those circumstances, did you say that you sought medical attention on 2 August 2014, only three days before you're having this conversation with someone at your solicitors' office?
A: Why, did I say I had sought it?
Q: Yes.
A: I do not know. I do not recall.
Q: But you were telling them something which was not correct?
A: I do not recall.”
The Medical Reports
The next significant event appears to be that both Claimants were examined by a Dr Iqbal on 2 December 2014 for the purposes of providing medico-legal reports in relation to their claims. The medical report in relation to the First Claimant, Mrs Richards, is dated 10 December 2014 and reflects an examination on 2 December 2014, 14 months and 15 days after the accident. The First Claimant described to the doctor being jolted forwards and backwards in the accident and to the car being written off as a result of the accident. Section B.3.2 deals with treatment and Dr Iqbal recorded:
“I've been told that following treatments have been received as a result of the index accident: Mrs Richards did not receive any treatment at the scene of the accident. She attended her GP's surgery two days after the accident. She was advised to use pain-killers and to do mobilising exercises. She took pain-killers. The treatment is on-going. She has been doing self-exercises since the accident.”
Section B.3.3 deals with past medical history and states as follows:
“Mrs Richards informed me of the following medical history: Mrs Richards was involved in a road traffic accident five years ago which caused injuries to her neck and lower back. She had fully recovered after few months. Mrs Richards has a history of intermittent low back pain. She has suffered from this over the last six years. It has been exacerbated by the accident.”
So far as the injuries and symptoms sustained as a result of the index accident, Dr Iqbal recorded that Mrs Richards had complained of the following:
• Pain, stiffness and discomfort to the neck:
“She developed moderate pain, stiffness and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David Pinkus v Direct Line
... ... 207 In Richards v Morris [2018] EWHC 289 QB Martin Spencer J again identified the ... ...
-
Luul Michael v I E & D Hurford Ltd T/A Rainbow
...33 In Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service, Aviva Insurance Limited [2018] EWHC 1288 (QB) and Richards and Anor v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB), a case also involving the question of whether a claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in bringing a personal injury claim, Martin......
-
Advantage Insurance Company Ltd v Alan Harris
...and iv) a CNF carries with it a statement of truth. 45 In connection with that last point Mr McGrath referred to Richards v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) where Martin Spencer J said this about CNF's: “7. I interpose to make two comments about CNFs generally. Firstly, CNFs are important docu......
-
Fundamental Dishonesty: Appeal Against Low Speed Damages Award Gets Green Light
...witnesses give evidence." Mr Justice Spencer emphasised the importance of claims notification forms in Richards and another v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB), stating that they "are important documents: they provide the basis for possible proceedings for contempt of court, as seen, and they pr......