RTA Hearings - Peter Harthan, 7 Harrington Street
01/11/15. Let’s assume; i) There was a collision about which a correct description can be given; ii) Both drivers have different accounts of the same collision; iii) The accounts given by each party cannot both be correct. One party’s account may be correct and the other wrong, or neither party’s account may be wholly correct. The Judge hearing the case must make findings based on the evidence they hear as to whose account they prefer and give Judgment according to which version they find the most likely.
Judges do their best. However, as in any endeavour involving human beings, some are better than others and mistakes are sometimes made. What I often find however is an abundance of faith from clients that the Court will get it right. It then makes the blow even more crushing when, for whatever reason, the Court prefers the other driver’s account.
The difficulties that the Court faces are substantial. The Judge wasn’t there to witness the accident. They must therefore decide which driver they find to be more credible. The likely victor in the claim is therefore not the driver whose account is closest to the truth of the matter but rather...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/baona
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
