Isik v Clegg

A claimant bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the loss claimed resulted from the defendant’s negligence. A defendant alleging fraud need not prove the fraud allegation, and need not establish the truth of any alternative case advanced. The court may conclude that the evidence leaves the alleged damage in doubt. In that event, the claimant fails because the burden of proof remains unsatisfied. A finding that some evidence is deliberately false does not necessarily establish that every aspect of the claim is dishonest. The court must assess the evidence as a whole, including expert evidence, while making its own findings on causation and injury.

The defendant admitted negligence after her car collided with the rear of the claimant’s stationary vehicle. The claimant sought damages for personal injury and vehicle damage, with the amounts agreed subject to liability. The defendant alleged that the claim was fraudulent and disputed both the alleged vehicle damage and the claimant’s account of his injuries.

The court considered the credibility of the claimant and the defendant, the photographic evidence concerning vehicle damage, the claimant’s history of previous road traffic accidents, and an orthopaedic report. The central issues were whether the claimant had deliberately exaggerated aspects of the claim and whether he had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he suffered compensable injury caused by the collision.

1. Vehicle damage. The photographs and evidence established that the claimant’s car had not sustained the damage alleged. The claimant’s account of the collision and his dealings with the defendant was materially inaccurate.
2. Credibility. The claimant had deliberately made false statements in order to exaggerate the damages. That finding did not automatically establish that his evidence about back injury was dishonest.
3. Burden of proof. The burden of proving that the claimed damage resulted from the defendant’s negligence remained throughout on the claimant. The defendant was entitled to allege and seek to prove fraud, but had no obligation to do so and no obligation to prove the truth of her own alternative case.
4. Assessment of injury. The court gave weight to the opinion of the experienced orthopaedic surgeon, but had to decide the issue for itself. In light of the claimant’s admitted or established untruthfulness, the court remained in doubt about the truth of his evidence concerning the back injury. That doubt meant that he had failed to discharge the burden of proof.
5. The claim therefore failed in its entirety. Judgment was entered for the defendant in respect of the personal injury and vehicle damage claims.