Taleb v Trina Coaches Ltd

An appellate court may intervene in a factual decision where the trial judge has rejected material evidence without adequate reasons or has made material errors in evaluating it. Where CCTV records only events before and after an accident, and does not capture the critical event, it may not safely establish what happened or displace consistent eyewitness evidence. The trial judge must assess the witness evidence together with the recording and explain any acceptance or rejection. A claimant cannot be treated as failing to prove the case merely because limited visual evidence does not itself establish the necessary fact.

The claimant appealed from the dismissal of her road-traffic claim by HHJ Seymour QC in the Queen’s Bench Division. She alleged that a coach overtaking her had clipped her bicycle’s handlebar and caused her fall. The judge rejected the evidence of both the claimant and the coach driver and concluded that the CCTV did not prove the coach had struck her. The central issue was whether the judge had properly evaluated the evidence and was entitled simply to rely on the incomplete CCTV recording.

Lady Justice Smith gave the leading judgment. Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Rimer agreed.

1. The judge was entitled to reject the driver’s evidence, but he rejected the claimant’s evidence for no adequate reason. The apparent error concerning whether she was riding in a bus lane was, at most, an error of terminology and did not justify wholesale rejection of her account. If there were other reasons, they had not been expressed ([11]–[13]).
2. The CCTV evidence had significant limitations. It did not capture the few seconds in which the accident occurred, and the position of the coach at the later frame was not a reliable guide to its position when any collision would have occurred. The judge’s assessment also contained inconsistencies with his earlier findings about the cyclist’s and coach’s positions ([14]–[18]).
3. Given those shortcomings, the judge could not safely infer from the CCTV alone that the coach had given the cyclist sufficient clearance. The claimant’s consistent evidence was crucial and was not demonstrably contradicted by the recording. The judge should have evaluated it with the CCTV and, if appropriate, the driver’s evidence, and should have given reasons for accepting or rejecting it. It was not open simply to conclude that the claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof ([19]–[20]).
4. The formal order was: appeal allowed.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: HHJ Seymour QC dismissed the claimant’s claim, finding that she had not proved that the coach caused her fall.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was unanimously allowed.