Bahceci v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor [2023] EW Misc 18 (CC) (17 November 2023)

Bahceci v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor [2023] EW Misc 18 (CC) (17 November 2023)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident was deliberately staged by the Claimant and Part 20 Defendant as part of a conspiracy to defraud Tesco. The Claimant's evidence was found to be evasive, inconsistent, and not credible. Forensic engineering evidence demonstrated that much of the claimed damage was unrelated to the accident. The court accepted Tesco's evidence of links to other staged accidents and found the Claimant had both motive and opportunity. The torts of deceit and conspiracy were established against the Claimant and Part 20 Defendant.

Citation
[2023] EW Misc 18 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Mazlum Bahceci; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Tesco Stores Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Samatar Jama
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort Fraud/deceit/conspiracy) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for Tesco on counterclaim and Part 20 claim.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Conspiracy, Insurance Fraud, Personal Injury, Assessment of Damages
Tort Law Civil Procedure Fraud Deceit Conspiracy Insurance Fraud Personal Injury Assessment of Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mazlum Bahceci

Claimant

Tesco Stores Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Samatar Jama

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort Fraud/deceit/conspiracy) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident on 25 April 2019 was staged as part of a conspiracy to defraud Tesco.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant and Part 20 Defendant committed the torts of deceit and conspiracy against Tesco.
  3. 3 Whether the damages claimed by the Claimant were fraudulent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident was deliberately staged by the Claimant and Part 20 Defendant as part of a conspiracy to defraud Tesco. The Claimant's evidence was found to be evasive, inconsistent, and not credible. Forensic engineering evidence demonstrated that much of the claimed damage was unrelated to the accident. The court accepted Tesco's evidence of links to other staged accidents and found the Claimant had both motive and opportunity. The torts of deceit and conspiracy were established against the Claimant and Part 20 Defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for Tesco on counterclaim and Part 20 claim.

Orders

  • Claimant's claim dismissed in its entirety.
  • Judgment for Tesco on the counterclaim for deceit and conspiracy.