This site uses cookies.

30 September 2011 - PI Practitioner

Singh v Habib [2011] EWCA] Civ 599

In an allegedly fraudulent road traffic accident, the Second Defendant insurer (the First Defendant not cooperating) sought to introduce new evidence of fraud at the appeal before the Circuit Judge (the District Judge having found for the Claimant).

The Court of Appeal allowed the Second Defendant’s appeal against the Circuit Judge’s refusal to grant permission to rely on such additional evidence. In particular the Court of Appeal highlighted that the pre-CPR authorities on the admission of additional evidence are not to be taken as a strait jacket. It would be a counsel of perfection to consider that defence solicitors engaged in modest RTA litigation, mindful of the need to conduct matters proportionately, would have come across the evidence in question. The Court should be particularly aware of the public interesting preventing fraudulent RTA claims when considering this type of question.

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.