Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service & Anor

Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service & Anor

The appeal was allowed and the claim dismissed because the Claimant was found to have been fundamentally dishonest in relation to his claim, including lying about previous accidents, exaggerating special damages, and providing inconsistent and unreliable evidence. The trial judge erred in accepting the Claimant's evidence despite clear evidence of dishonesty and inconsistency, and the claim failed both on the merits and under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Mirajuddin Molodi; First Defendant/appellant: Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service; Second Defendant/appellant: Aviva Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court to High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed for fundamental dishonesty
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Road Traffic Accident, Fundamental Dishonesty, Damages, Appeals
Tort Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident Fundamental Dishonesty Damages 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Mirajuddin Molodi

Claimant/respondent

Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service

First Defendant/appellant

Aviva Insurance Limited

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant suffered injury as a result of the accident
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was fundamentally dishonest in his claim
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in accepting the Claimant's evidence despite inconsistencies and untruths

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and the claim dismissed because the Claimant was found to have been fundamentally dishonest in relation to his claim, including lying about previous accidents, exaggerating special damages, and providing inconsistent and unreliable evidence. The trial judge erred in accepting the Claimant's evidence despite clear evidence of dishonesty and inconsistency, and the claim failed both on the merits and under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed for fundamental dishonesty