Off the scale: Saleem Khan v Saeed Akram & HSBC Insurance (UK) Ltd (Birmingham CC, 27 January 2012)

The defendant had actively supported the claimant’s case in this matter, causing the insurer client to become suspicious.  Our Fraud team was instructed and obtained an engineer’s report which concluded that the vehicle damage was inconsistent with both vehicles colliding with each other.

Further investigation exposed other inconsistent evidence in relation to the claimant’s alleged injuries, the progress of the symptoms and previous RTA history.  The claimant’s allegation that he couldn’t attend the gym after the accident was shown to be untrue by the fact the gym was closed!

At trial, our counsel had a field day exposing the contradictions in the claimant’s evidence. The claimant was such a poor witness that his evidence was described as “off the scale”.

Ultimately, the claimant took his counsel’s advice and discontinued the claim.  Recorder Harvey ordered the claimant to pay the defendant £8000 on account of costs, with the remainder to be dealt with by way of detailed assessment on the indemnity basis.

The claimant alleged that he was driving along a main road when the defendant emerged from a side road into the side of his vehicle, causing him personal injury and vehicle damage.  The defendant agreed with the accident circumstances as alleged by the claimant, and went so far as to actively support the claimant’s case.

The defendant’s insurers “smelled a rat” and instructed our fraud team to deal with the matter.  We obtained an engineer’s report which concluded that the vehicle damage was inconsistent with the alleged collision.

Further inconsistencies were revealed through our investigation.  The claimant told his medical expert that he suffered injuries to his neck and upper back.  His statement referred to injuries to his shoulder as well, whereas the GP notes recorded injuries to the neck and mid back.  Furthermore, the claimant told his expert that it took him two months to fully recover, yet his statement referred to full recovery within three weeks, and his Part 18 replies to a 15 month period.

There were other inconsistencies in the claimant’s evidence: the gym he alleged that he was unable to attend after the accident was in fact closed! The claimant also related different accident history on various occasions; he told the expert that he had one other previous accident; he had no previous accidents according to his Part 18 replies, yet two more accidents were recorded in his medical records.

At trial, our counsel exposed the above inconsistencies, and others, during cross-examination. The claimant gave such poor evidence that his ability as a witness was described as “off the scale”. 

He denied the previous accidents, and gave contradicting information regarding the severity of his symptoms.  Recorder Harvey was particularly unimpressed when the claimant told the court that he was working cash-in-hand and did not pay tax! The judge asked the claimant on four occasions “Is that really your evidence or are you just making this up for me?” 

Before adjourning for lunch, Recorder Harvey said: “We will be back at 2.00pm, if needed” giving a clear indication of his thoughts on the case.  Over lunch, the claimant took his counsel’s advice and decided to discontinue the claim.

Recorder Harvey ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs.  He ordered the claimant to pay £8000 on account of costs with the remainder to be dealt with by way of detailed assessment.  He commented that indemnity costs were entirely appropriate in this case.

For more information, please contact: mark.hudson@horwichfarrelly.co.uk