Vakharia & Ors v Bukowski & Anor [2022] EWHC 673 (QB) (25 March 2022)

Vakharia & Ors v Bukowski & Anor [2022] EWHC 673 (QB) (25 March 2022)

The Part 20 Claimants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Mr Ige was negligent in leaving the ERA. The evidence did not establish that the engine management light remained illuminated after restarting in the ERA, nor that Mr Ige knew or ought to have known the fault persisted. Mr Ige acted as a reasonably careful driver would in the circumstances. The primary cause of the accident was the Scania driver's failure to react to a visible hazard. No contribution is due from Mr Ige or Zurich.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 673 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Ayush Vakharia (by Litigation Friend Rohit Mehta); Claimant: Mr Shivam Shahji (by Litigation Friend Jitendra Kumar); Claimant: Mr Shehzan Mohammed; Claimant: Mr Bashir Ahmed (Dependent & Administrator of the Estate of Zahid Ahmed, Deceased); Claimant: Ms Yasmin Ahmed; Claimant: Miss Suhila Ahmed (by Litigation Friend Bashir Ahmed); Claimant: Miss Sara Ahmed (by Litigation Friend Bashir Ahmed); Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Mr Wojciech Stanislaw Bukowski; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen S.A.; Third Party/part 20 Defendant: Mr Ayoade Ademonla Ige; Fourth Party/part 20 Defendant: Zurich Insurance plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Road Traffic Accident/contribution Claim / High Court Trial on Liability and Apportionment (part 20 Claim)
Outcome
Part 20 claim dismissed; no contribution ordered against Mr Ige or Zurich.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Apportionment of Liability, Contribution Under Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978, Road Traffic Accidents, Standard of Care, Highway Code, Smart Motorways
Tort Law Civil Procedure Insurance Law Negligence Duty of Care Apportionment of Liability Contribution Under Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 Road Traffic Accidents +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ayush Vakharia (by Litigation Friend Rohit Mehta)

Claimant

Mr Shivam Shahji (by Litigation Friend Jitendra Kumar)

Claimant

Mr Shehzan Mohammed

Claimant

Mr Bashir Ahmed (Dependent & Administrator of the Estate of Zahid Ahmed, Deceased)

Claimant

Ms Yasmin Ahmed

Claimant

Miss Suhila Ahmed (by Litigation Friend Bashir Ahmed)

Claimant

Miss Sara Ahmed (by Litigation Friend Bashir Ahmed)

Claimant

Mr Wojciech Stanislaw Bukowski

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen S.A.

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Mr Ayoade Ademonla Ige

Third Party/part 20 Defendant

Zurich Insurance plc

Fourth Party/part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Road Traffic Accident/contribution Claim / High Court Trial on Liability and Apportionment (part 20 Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Mr Ige negligent in driving the Kia out of the Emergency Refuge Area (ERA) before coming to a halt in a running lane of the M1?
  2. 2 If so, was such negligence a cause of the accident?
  3. 3 If so, should the Part 20 Defendants contribute to the damages claimed by the Claimants and if so, at what level?

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 20 Claimants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Mr Ige was negligent in leaving the ERA. The evidence did not establish that the engine management light remained illuminated after restarting in the ERA, nor that Mr Ige knew or ought to have known the fault persisted. Mr Ige acted as a reasonably careful driver would in the circumstances. The primary cause of the accident was the Scania driver's failure to react to a visible hazard. No contribution is due from Mr Ige or Zurich.

Court Disposition

Part 20 claim dismissed; no contribution ordered against Mr Ige or Zurich.

Orders

  • No order for contribution against Mr Ige or Zurich.
  • Costs to be determined separately.