Richards & Anor v Morris

Richards & Anor v Morris

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge adopted an excessively benevolent approach to evidence that was inconsistent, unreliable, and sometimes untruthful. The Claimants failed to prove their case for personal injury, and the bases relied upon by the trial judge (vehicle separation and muscle spasm) were insufficient to overcome the substantial inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the evidence. The claims were dismissed, but no finding of fundamental dishonesty was made.

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 Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Whiplash Claims, Low Velocity Impact, Credibility of Witnesses, Medical Evidence, Special Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty
Tort Civil Procedure Personal Injury Whiplash Claims Low Velocity Impact Credibility of Witnesses Medical Evidence Special Damages +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Richards

Claimant/respondent

Zane McGrann

Claimant/respondent

Edna Morris

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants proved their case for personal injury arising from a low velocity impact accident
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies and inaccuracies in evidence and claims amount to dishonesty or failure to prove the claim
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in accepting the Claimants' evidence despite demonstrable inconsistencies

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge adopted an excessively benevolent approach to evidence that was inconsistent, unreliable, and sometimes untruthful. The Claimants failed to prove their case for personal injury, and the bases relied upon by the trial judge (vehicle separation and muscle spasm) were insufficient to overcome the substantial inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the evidence. The claims were dismissed, but no finding of fundamental dishonesty was made.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Defendant on both claims.
  • No finding of fundamental dishonesty.