Aziz v Ali & Ors [2014] EWHC 1846 (QB) (09 June 2014)

Aziz v Ali & Ors [2014] EWHC 1846 (QB) (09 June 2014)

The court found, based on expert engineering evidence and the admission of one claimant, that the alleged accidents did not occur as described. The physical evidence was inconsistent with the claimants' accounts, and at least one claimant admitted the claim was fabricated for financial gain. Therefore, the claimants failed to prove that any negligence or accident occurred, and all claims were dismissed as fraudulent.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1846
Parties
Claimant: Mr Mohammed Adris Aziz; Defendant: Mr Ansar Ali; Defendant: Esure Services Ltd; Claimant: Mr Abdul Jamil; Defendant: Mr Sherzad Serwan; Defendant: Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services; Claimant: Mrs Farhana Kazmi; Claimant: Mrs Shamila Saleem
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury (road Traffic Accident) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Fraudulent Claims, Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Civil Evidence, Committal for Contempt
Tort Insurance Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Fraudulent Claims Negligence Road Traffic Accidents Civil 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Mohammed Adris Aziz

Claimant

Mr Ansar Ali

Defendant

Esure Services Ltd

Defendant

Mr Abdul Jamil

Claimant

Mr Sherzad Serwan

Defendant

Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services

Defendant

Mrs Farhana Kazmi

Claimant

Mrs Shamila Saleem

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury (road Traffic Accident) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged road traffic accidents occurred as claimed by the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were negligent as alleged
  3. 3 Whether the claims were fraudulent

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, based on expert engineering evidence and the admission of one claimant, that the alleged accidents did not occur as described. The physical evidence was inconsistent with the claimants' accounts, and at least one claimant admitted the claim was fabricated for financial gain. Therefore, the claimants failed to prove that any negligence or accident occurred, and all claims were dismissed as fraudulent.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed

Orders

  • Claims of Mr Aziz, Mr Jamil, Mrs Kazmi, and Mrs Saleem are dismissed.