Haider v DSM Demolition Ltd

Haider v DSM Demolition Ltd

The trial judge's reasons, though brief, were adequate and supported by evidence; the Claimant failed to prove negligence by the Defendant. However, the Claimant's deliberate failure to disclose credit cards and bank accounts was fundamentally dishonest, warranting disapplication of QOCS and enforcement of costs order.

Parties
Claimant: Mansur Haider; Defendant: DSM Demolition Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Claimant's appeal dismissed; Defendant's cross-appeal allowed to the extent indicated.
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Accident, Negligence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs), Relief From Sanctions, Disclosure Obligations
Tort Civil Procedure Road Traffic Accident Negligence Fundamental Dishonesty Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs) Relief From Sanctions Disclosure Obligations

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mansur Haider

Claimant

DSM Demolition Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for finding no negligence by the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's findings on speed and distance were supported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was fundamentally dishonest in disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's reasons, though brief, were adequate and supported by evidence; the Claimant failed to prove negligence by the Defendant. However, the Claimant's deliberate failure to disclose credit cards and bank accounts was fundamentally dishonest, warranting disapplication of QOCS and enforcement of costs order.

Court Disposition

Claimant's appeal dismissed; Defendant's cross-appeal allowed to the extent indicated.

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal dismissed.
  • Defendant granted relief from sanctions and permission to cross-appeal.