Aziz v Ali & Ors

In a civil negligence claim arising from an alleged road traffic accident, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the accident occurred, that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, and that the breach caused damage. Where the alleged collision is not proved, the pleaded particulars of negligence cannot establish liability. Expert engineering evidence may be decisive on whether vehicle damage is compatible with the alleged circumstances. The civil trial remains distinct from any later contempt proceedings, in which the applicable issues, burden and evidence may differ.

Four consolidated claims concerned two alleged road traffic accidents. Mr Aziz claimed against Mr Ali and Esure Services Ltd. Mr Jamil, Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem claimed against Mr Serwan and Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services. The insurer defendants contended that neither accident had occurred and that the claims formed part of a fraudulent-claim scheme.

The court considered the claimants’ evidence, expert motor-engineering evidence and evidence concerning the insurance arrangements. The central issues were whether either accident occurred as pleaded and, if so, whether negligence and resulting damage had been proved.

1. Claims dismissed. All four claims were dismissed.
2. The claimants had to prove on the balance of probabilities that another road user breached the duty to exercise reasonable care and caused damage.
3. Accepted engineering evidence showed that the vehicle damage in both alleged accidents was incompatible with the pleaded moving-collision circumstances. Credibility findings and, in Mrs Kazmi’s case, admissions that the claim was fabricated reinforced that conclusion.
4. Because the alleged collisions did not occur, the pleaded failures to give way, keep a lookout, control the vehicles or avoid collision could not establish negligence or causation.
5. The hearing concerned only the civil claims. Any later contempt proceedings would involve different questions, standards and potentially different evidence.

First-instance determination of four consolidated claims in the High Court. The proceedings had previously been transferred from the county court by order dated 17 February 2014.