PI Brief Update

The Decision in Parker v Butler [2016] EWHC 1251: The Applicability of QOCS to Appeals - Craig Fisher, 7 Harrington Street Chambers

17/06/16. Parker v Butler started life as a fairly unremarkable road traffic collision on the M18/M180 roundabout that occurred on 10 April 2013, and fell into that all too common category of cases “who changed lanes”; the Claimant averred that the Defendant came into his lane and into collision, whereas the Defendant averred that the Claimant came into his lane and into collision

The case came to trial and at first instance HHJ Pemberton found both the Claimant and the Defendant to be witnesses who were doing their best to tell the truth and believed the account that they were giving. She criticised the Claimant (or his solicitors) for the lack of any photographs or plans of the junction, and dismissed the claim as the Claimant failed to discharge the burden placed upon him.

The Claimant appealed on a number of grounds and for a number of reasons including grounds which could succinctly be put as:

1. Having considered both drivers as being persons of honesty, failed to actually analyse their evidence and come to a factual conclusion on the question in the case, ie. Who moved lanes;

2. Failing at all to consider the evidence of the Claimant’s wife, who was a passenger within the vehicle; and

3. Failed in suggesting that the Claimant, to discharge the burden placed upon him, should have provided photographs or diagrams of the junction, so as to allow her to come to a conclusion.

On appeal...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Nikada

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...