hussain_hussainCA2012
References: [2012] EWCA Civ 1367
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Neuberger MR, Davis, Treacy LJJ
Ratio: The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after a car accident. The defendants argued that the claim was fraudulent. The defendant driver had been involved in other collisions found to be fraudulent. The claimant appealed saying that the judges conclusions had not been justified on the evidence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The claim was essentially on the facts: ‘I would for myself, however, be a little wary of saying that, for an appellate court to interfere with a judge’s assessment of the evidence, it must be satisfied that the trial judge was ‘plainly’ or ‘clearly’ wrong – because the Rules do not so provide. Moreover the issue on an appeal such as this does not concern the exercise of a discretion but concerns the judicial evaluation of evidence.’
The judge had insufficient evidence to support his finding. There is no ‘rule’ that a court should follow the money, and the court was wrong to conclude that the accident only made sense as a fraud by the defendant driver if the claimant was also involved.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Powell v Streatham Manor Nursing Home HL ([1935] AC 243, [1935] All ER 38, (1935) 152 LT 563, (1935) 104 LJKB 304)
Where the Judge at the trial has come to a conclusion upon the question which of the witnesses, whom he has seen and heard, are trustworthy and which are not, he is normally in a better position to judge of this matter than the appellate tribunal . . - Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA (Bailii, Times 29-Nov-02, Gazette 23-Jan-03, [2002] EWCA Civ 1642, [2003] 1 WLR 577, [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 131, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 140)
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . . - Cited – Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd CA ([1957] 1 QB 247, [1956] 3 All ER 970)
The court was asked what was the standard of proof required to establish the tort of misrepresentation, and it contrasted the different standards of proof applicable in civil and criminal cases.
Held: The standard was the balance of . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 05 January 2019
Ref: 465112
The post Hussain v Hussain and Another: CA 23 Oct 2012 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.