Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court refused a full adjournment after the BSR rejected the claimant’s remedial scheme, but split the case so June 2026 would proceed on liability only.
The defendant did not fall below the standard of a reasonably competent driver. The claimant appeared suddenly from behind a parked car, giving the defendant insufficient time to perceive and react to the hazard. The defendant's perception reaction time, compounded by the angle of eccentricity, meant she could not have avoided the accident. Therefore, the claim of negligence fails.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that Mr Teasdale drifted onto the wrong side of the road and caused the collision; Mr Howard was not negligent.
The Defendant is liable for the accident because its insured, Mr Nunes-Azevedo, was driving at a speed well in excess of the limit, in breach of section 10.1 of the Belgian Traffic Code, and this was causally linked to the collision. However, the deceased, Mr Schmit, was contributorily negligent for failing to stop in the cycle lane to gain a better view, which would have avoided the collision. Liability is apportioned equally at 50% each. The claim under section 29bis of the Law of 21 November 1989 is not time-barred. Damages are assessed under Belgian law, with certain heads of loss adjuste…
Source excerpt
The Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendants' driver was negligent. The evidence established that the Claimant was driving at excessive speed, failed to navigate the bend properly, entered the wrong carriageway, and caused the collision. The Defendants' driver acted appropriately and did all he could to avoid the accident.
Source excerpt
Rowbottom v The Estate of Peter Howard, Deceased & Anor [2023] EWHC 931 (KB) (25 April 2023)
The High Court found that a motorcycle-car collision was caused by the second defendant drifting into the wrong lane. The claimant was blameless and judgment was for her against him.
The High Court dismissed a pedestrian road traffic claim after finding the driver was not negligent and the collision was unavoidable.
Defamation claim over review-site posts was proved against the defendant. The court found 20 posts defamatory, caused serious harm, awarded £42,500 and granted an injunction.
Road traffic liability trial in which the court preferred the defendant’s version of events, found the claimant’s case unreliable, and dismissed the claim.
Robinson v Barker & Anor [2020] EWHC 3097 (QB) (18 November 2020)
High Court liability trial over a road traffic collision in Stockport. The court rejected the claimant’s account, preferred the defendant’s version, and dismissed the claim.
Explore more
