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

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

Despite inconsistencies and some misleading claims, the evidence did not reach the threshold of fundamental dishonesty. The judge was entitled to accept that both claimants suffered genuine, short-lived whiplash injuries caused by the accident, supported by clinical findings of muscle spasm. Special damages claims for physiotherapy and vehicle value were disallowed due to lack of causation and prior compensation.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1289 (QB)
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; original judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Accident, Whiplash Injury, Fundamental Dishonesty, Special Damages, Medical Evidence, Fast Track Procedure
Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Road Traffic Accident Whiplash Injury Fundamental Dishonesty Special Damages Medical Evidence +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 for personal injury and special damages were fundamentally dishonest
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies in evidence amount to dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in accepting evidence of injury despite inconsistencies

Ratio Decidendi

Despite inconsistencies and some misleading claims, the evidence did not reach the threshold of fundamental dishonesty. The judge was entitled to accept that both claimants suffered genuine, short-lived whiplash injuries caused by the accident, supported by clinical findings of muscle spasm. Special damages claims for physiotherapy and vehicle value were disallowed due to lack of causation and prior compensation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; original judgment upheld.

Orders

  • Judgment for Claimants for £2,500 each in general damages.
  • Claims for special damages (physiotherapy and vehicle value) disallowed.