Richards & Anor v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) (24 May 2018)

Richards & Anor v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) (24 May 2018)

The appeal was dismissed because, despite inconsistencies and some untruths in the claimants' evidence, the trial judge was entitled to find that the injuries were genuine and not fundamentally dishonest. The judge's assessment of damages for an 8-month injury was upheld, and the claims for special damages were properly disallowed. The trial judge's reliance on clinical findings and his experience was justified in the absence of contrary expert evidence from the defendant.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1289
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Susan Richards; Claimant/respondent: Zane McGrann; Defendant/appellant: Edna Morris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of HHJ Main QC Dated 11 April 2016
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Road Traffic Accidents, Whiplash Claims, Fundamental Dishonesty, Damages Assessment, Appeals
Tort Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Road Traffic Accidents Whiplash Claims Fundamental Dishonesty Damages Assessment Appeals

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Richards

Claimant/respondent

Zane McGrann

Claimant/respondent

Edna Morris

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of HHJ Main QC Dated 11 April 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims by the respondents were fundamentally dishonest and should be dismissed
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in accepting the respondents' evidence despite inconsistencies
  3. 3 Whether the assessment of damages was appropriate given the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, despite inconsistencies and some untruths in the claimants' evidence, the trial judge was entitled to find that the injuries were genuine and not fundamentally dishonest. The judge's assessment of damages for an 8-month injury was upheld, and the claims for special damages were properly disallowed. The trial judge's reliance on clinical findings and his experience was justified in the absence of contrary expert evidence from the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimants/respondents upheld
  • General damages of £2,500 each for the claimants maintained