Riaz v Fowler & Anor

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, adverse credibility findings did not necessarily resolve whether a quantified award for vehicle repairs was supported by the evidence. Where expert reports identified damage and estimated repair costs, and the first-instance judgment gave no explanation for disregarding that evidence or fixing a substantially lower figure, the sustainability of the award was arguable. The appropriate course was to adjourn the application for consideration by a two-judge court, with the appeal to follow if permission were granted. The rejection of the personal-injury claim was not challenged and the first-instance judge had been entitled to reach that conclusion on the evidence.

The claimant, Haroon Riaz, brought a personal-injury and vehicle-damage claim after a minor collision with Donna Fowler. Fowler was uninsured, and Norwich Union was joined as the Road Traffic Act insurer with contingent liability for any unsatisfied judgment. Deputy District Judge Goldberg found Fowler solely liable, rejected the personal-injury, storage and vehicle-hire claims, and awarded £100 for repairs. Permission to appeal was refused on paper by Keene LJ. On renewal, the claimant did not challenge the personal-injury findings but argued that the repair award failed to address expert reports estimating damage and repair costs, and that the judge had not explained his preference for evidence that the damage was trivial. The central issue was whether the credibility findings justified or supported the assessment of repair and storage costs.

The renewed application was adjourned for hearing before a two-judge court. The appeal was to follow if permission were granted.

1. Liability for the collision was not in issue. The deputy district judge had found the claimant to be an unsatisfactory and untruthful witness, relying on substantial contradictions and defects in the medical evidence. Wall LJ considered that the judge was plainly entitled to make those findings, and the absence of an appeal against the personal-injury decision was appropriate.
2. The challenge to the repair assessment raised a distinct question. The claimant relied on reports by Mr Morton and Mr Lee, which identified effectively identical damage and estimated repair costs exceeding £2,700. The first-instance judgment did not refer to either expert and did not explain the basis for awarding only £100 or for preferring the evidence that the damage was trivial.
3. The critical issue was the extent to which the adverse credibility findings affected the assessment of repair and storage costs. Those findings might bear on the reliability of the claimant’s evidence, but it remained arguable that the £100 figure was unsustainable without proper engagement with the expert evidence.
4. That issue required fuller consideration than was appropriate on the renewed application before a single judge. The matter was therefore to be listed on notice to Fowler and Norwich Union before a two-judge court, with a time estimate of two hours including judgment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Keene LJ refused permission to appeal on paper on 15 May 2009. On renewal, Wall LJ adjourned the application for hearing before a two-judge court, with the appeal to follow if permission were granted.
2. Leeds County Court: Deputy District Judge Goldberg, sitting on 22 January 2009, found the first respondent solely liable, dismissed the personal-injury, storage and vehicle-hire claims, awarded £100 for repairs, and ordered the claimant to pay Norwich Union’s costs.