Claim No: 9LV11893 & 0LV08453 & 2IR54647
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 1846 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY
Leeds Combined Court

Date: 09/06/2014
Before :

MR JUSTICE LEWIS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	MR MOHAMMED ADRIS AZIZ
- and –
(1) ANSAR ALI
(2) ESURE SERVICES LTD

MR ABDUL JAMIL
- and –
(1) MR SHERZAD SERWAN
(2) LIVERPOOL VICTORIA INSURANCE SERVICES

(1) MRS FARHANA KAZMI
(2) MRS SHAMILA SALEEM
- and –
(1) MR SHERZAD SERWAN
(2) LIVERPOOL VICTORIA INSURANCE SERVICES
	Claimant 

Defendants 

Claimant 

Defendants

Claimants 

Defendants 	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Aziz, Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem appeared in person
Mr Jamil did not appear and was not represented
Mr Ali and Mr Serwan did not appear and were not represented
Mr Paul Higgins (instructed by Horwich Farrely) for the Second Defendants

Hearing dates: 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd & 23rd 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Mr Justice Lewis: 
INTRODUCTION
1.	These are four claims relating to two separate matters. The first is a claim by Mr Mohammed Adris Aziz. At the material time, he was a private hire vehicle driver. He claims for damages for negligence arising out of an alleged car accident. He says that he was driving his car, a Ford Galaxy car, with two friends as passengers, on 7 April 2009 along Gledhow Valley Road in Leeds. He says that another vehicle, a Vauxhall Vectra, came out of a side road, did not give way, and drove into the side of his vehicle. He says the driver of that car was negligent and caused the accident. He claims that his vehicle sustained damage and had to be written-off and he contends that he suffered whiplash injuries and claims for damages. He claims against the 1st Defendant, a Mr Ansar Ali, who is said to be the driver of the other vehicle, and the 2nd Defendant Esure Services Ltd an insurance company.
2.	The second claim involves three individuals who also claimed damages arising out of an alleged car accident. One claimant is Mr Abdul Jamil. He is a taxi driver. He was carrying two passengers, Mrs Farhana Kazmi, and Mrs Shamila Saleem. Claim forms and particulars of claim were issued by all three claimants alleging that Mr Jamil was driving a Toyota Avensis car along Brudenell Street in Leeds on 3 April 2009. The particulars of each claim allege that another car, a Vauxhall Corsa, failed to give way and collided with the Toyota. The particulars allege that the other car was being driven negligently. They allege that Mr Jamil’s car was damaged and that he suffered injuries. They allege that Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Shaleem both say that they suffered injuries. The 1st Defendant is a Mr Sherzad Serwan who is said to be the driver of the other car. The 2nd Defendant is Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited. 
3.	The 2nd Defendant in each claim each contend that the two road traffic accidents referred to never happened. They contend that there has been a series of fraudulent claims whereby insurance policies are taken out by non-existent or non-traceable individuals. Other individuals then allege that they have been involved in a car accident with the individual in whose name the insurance policy is held and that individual is liable for the accident. They seek to recover compensation from the allegedly non-existent insured driver and the insurance company. The 2nd Defendants contend that the two accidents were part of that series of fraudulent claims. Initially, eight claims relating to four accidents were consolidated. Four claims relating to two of the accidents were struck out. That left these four claims relating to two accidents left to be determined.
4.	First, this judgement summarises the case as pleaded by each claimant. Secondly, the judgment sets out the principal procedural steps in the proceedings. Thirdly, the judgment sets out the law. The law is simple and not in dispute. The issues in these cases are factual rather than legal. Fourthly, the judgment deals with the claim of Mr Aziz, setting out the facts as found and the application of the law to those facts. Fifthly, the judgment deals with the claims of Mr Jamil, Mrs Saleem and Mrs Kazmi setting out the facts and applying the law to those facts.  In some instances, facts are not in dispute or are evidenced from the contemporaneous record. The critical facts, however, are in dispute and the findings on those facts, and the reasons for the findings are set out. 
THE PLEADINGS 
The First Claim- Mr Aziz
5.	On 16 September 2009, Mr Aziz issued a claim form and particulars of claim, naming Mr Ansar Ali as the only defendant. The claim was described as a claim for personal injury and other losses arsing out of a road traffic accident occurring on 7 April 2009. 
6.	The particulars of claim are as follows:
“1. On or about the 7th April 2009 the Claimant was driving a Ford Galaxy motor vehicle, registration mark VU05 XN, along Gledhow Valley Road in Leeds.
2. The Defendant was driving a Vauxhall Vectra motor vehicle, registration mark S610 LVN, along Roundhay Mount towards Gledhow Valley Road. He failed to Give Way at the end of Roundhay Mount and collided into the Claimant’s vehicle. As a result, the Claimant sustained injury, loss and damage.
3. The accident was caused as a result of the Defendants negligence. The Claimant has complied with the Personal Injury Protocol.”
7.	The particulars of negligence were as follows:
“The Defendant was negligent in that he:-
Drove at speed that was excessive in all the circumstances
Failed to brake, steer or otherwise control their vehicle so as to avoid a collision
Failed to see or heed the presence of the Claimant’s vehicle
Failed to keep any or any proper lookout
Drove from a minor road into a major road when it was unsafe to do so by reason of the presence of the Claimant’s vehicle
Failed to comply with road markings namely Give Way
Exposed the Claimant to a foreseeable risk of injury”
8.	The damages claimed were the following. First, he claimed a sum of £5,258 for special damages. That included a sum of £300 in relation to the excess on Mr Aziz’s own insurance policy, that is the amount that his own insurance company deducted from the amount that it paid him in respect of his vehicle. It also included a sum of £4,933 for the hire of a replacement vehicle. It also included a sum of £25 for consequential losses arising from the accident. Secondly, he sought general damages for injuries sustained and described in a medial report prepared by a Dr Khan on 27 June 2009 and annexed to the particulars of claim. 
The Second Set of Claims
9.	On 27 April 2010, Mr Abdul Jamil, issued a claim form and particulars of claim naming Mr Ansar Ali alone as the defendant.
10.	The particulars of claim say as follows:
“1. On or about the 3rd April 2009 the Claimant was driving a Toyota Avensis motor car registration mark WD04 HYN along Brudenell Street in Leeds.
2. The Defendant was driving a Vauxhall Corsa motor car registration mark R677 EDT along Brudenel Mount failed to give way and collided into the Claimant’s vehicle, as a result of which the Claimant sustained injury, loss and damage.
3. The accident was caused as a result of the Defendants negligence.
4. The Claimant has complied with the Personal Injury Protocol.”
11.	The particulars of negligence say as follows:
“The Defendant was negligent in that he:-
Drove at speed that was excessive in all the circumstances
Failed to brake steer or otherwise control their vehicle so as to avoid a collision
Failed to see or heed the presence of the Claimant’s vehicle
Failed to keep any or any proper lookout
Drove into collision with the Claimant’s vehicle when by the exercise of proper skill and care they could have avoided doing so
Drove from a minor road into a major road when it was unsafe to do so by reason of the presence of the Claimant’s vehicle
Failed to comply with road markings namely Give Way”
12.	The damages claimed by Mr Jamil were the following. First, he claimed a sum of £3,175.90 for special damages. That included a sum of £250 in relation to the excess on Mr Jamil’s own insurance policy, that is the amount that his own insurance company deducted from the amount that it paid him in respect of his vehicle. It also included a sum of £2,495.90 for the hire of a replacement vehicle and £405 for recovery and storage of his own vehicle. It also included a sum of £25 for consequential losses arising from the accident. Secondly, he sought general damages for injuries sustained and described in a medial report prepared by a Dr Zaki on 24 July 2010 and annexed to the particulars of claim. 
13.	A claim form and particulars of claim was also issued on behalf of Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem. The particulars of claim were identical to those of Mr Jamil save that it described these two claimants as passengers in the car rather than the driver. The particulars of negligence were identical to those of Mr Jamil. These Claimants each claimed special damages of £25 for consequential losses and damages for injury as set out in a medical report for each of these two claimants included in a medical report of Dr Zaki of 24 July 2009 and annexed to the particulars of claim.
THE PRINCIPAL PROCEDURAL STEPS
Other Claims
14.	Claim forms were also issued in respect of two other alleged accidents. These claims alleged that those other claimants had been driving in, or were passengers in, a vehicle which had been in collision with another vehicle and that the driver of the other vehicle were issue in respect of two other accidents.  
Consolidation
15.	By order dated 18 February 2011, Mr Aziz’s claim and Mr Jamil’s claim were consolidated together with four other claims relating to two other alleged car accidents. Mr Aziz’s case was identified as the lead claim. By order dated 16 August 2012, Mrs Kazmi’s and Mrs Shaleem’s claims were ordered to be case managed and to be tried together with the other claims proceeding under the lead claim (that is, Mr Aziz’s claim). On various dates, the claims brought by the other claimants were struck out. That left the four claims, relating to two accidents, brought by the claimants in these proceedings.
Notices of Discontinuance
16.	A notice of discontinuance dated 16 April 2013 was served by solicitors acting on behalf of Mr Aziz. Notices of discontinuance dated 17 April 2013 were served by solicitors acting on behalf of Mr Jamil, Mrs Kazami, and Mrs Shaleem. 
The Setting Aside of the Notices and the Transfer of the Proceedings to the High Court
17.	On 9 May 2013, the insurance companies applied to set aside the four notices of discontinuance to enable the trial to proceed. They also applied for an order transferring the proceedings from the county court to the High Court. A statement was sworn by Mr McCann in support of the application. He stated that the principal reason for the application was that permission of a High Court judge (or the Attorney General) is required to bring an application for contempt for the making of false statements in connection with proceedings in the county court: see CPR Part 81.18(3). The insurance companies considered it sensible to seek to have the hearing of the claim transferred to the High Court so that the High Court judge who dealt with the claim would also be in a position to consider any application for permission to apply for a committal order and to deal with the committal application if permission is granted, as contemplated by the Court of Appeal in Tariq Ali v Esure  [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1868.
18.	On 17 February 2014, HHJ Gosnell had a hearing to deal with the applications. He ordered that the four notices of discontinuance be set aside and that the matter be transferred to the High Court to be set down for a hearing with a four day time estimate. Various other consequential orders were made.
19.	I make the following preliminary observations. This hearing is the trial of the claims for personal injury brought by the four claimants. I am conscious that the 2nd Defendants in these claims may ultimately wish to make an application for permission to apply for a committal order and there may, if permission is granted, be proceedings for a committal order. However, in  my judgment it is both necessary and appropriate to bear in mind that the present hearing is concerned with the civil claims brought by the four claimants not any application in relation to contempt that might be brought by the 2nd Defendants. It is important to keep that distinction in mind for the following reasons.
20.	First, the proceedings for personal injury are civil proceedings, where the burden of proof is on the claimants and is a civil burden,  that is the question is whether, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants have established the necessary elements of their claims for negligence. Any application for permission to apply for a committal order raises questions of whether or not granting permission would be in the public interest: see KJM Superbikes v Hinton  [2009] 1 W.L.R. 2406. Furthermore, at the stage of an application for permission, the question is whether proceedings for contempt should be allowed not whether the contempt has in fact occurred. If permission were granted, the burden is on the persons applying for the committal order (here, it would be the 2nd Defendants) to specify the grounds for bringing the application and to establish, beyond reasonable doubt (that is, to the criminal standard) that those grounds are made out and further matters would also need to be established: see CPR 81.14 and 81.17. The rules also deal with evidence and procedure at any such hearing: see CPR 81.28
21.	Second, I am conscious that the judgment in these civil proceedings will be based upon the evidence adduced in these proceedings. Furthermore, in the case of Mr Jamil, he did not attend the hearing of his civil claim and he did not give or call evidence in that claim. The evidence that might be adduced in any committal proceedings might be different from the evidence adduced in these proceedings.
22.	For those reasons, in my judgment, it is both sensible and appropriate to focus on the present proceedings which involve simply the determination of the civil claims for negligence. Any application for permission to commit, and any hearing of any committal application if permission is granted, are matters for future proceedings, applying different rules, with potentially different evidence. 
The Hearing
23.	By notice dated 18 February 2014, all four claimants were notified that the trial would begin on 19 May 2014 and that four days had been allowed for the trial.
24.	On 19 May 2014, Mr Aziz, Mrs Kazmi, Mrs Saleem, the 2nd Defendants’ counsel and witnesses attended at court. Also in attendance were two interpreters, one for Mrs Kazmi and one for Mrs Saleem. Mr Jamil was not in attendance in the circumstances described below. 
25.	At the opening of hearing, it was explained that this was a hearing of the four claims for negligence and that each claimant would have to prove the claim and that the usual way of doing so was by calling evidence. It was explained that evidence was given on oath or affirmation and was subject to cross-examination. The importance of telling the truth when giving evidence was explained. It was also explained that where a witness statement had been made in proceedings, the usual way of giving evidence was for the maker of the statement to be asked to confirm if that was his or her statement, if  there were any changes or additions that the maker wished to make to the statement and if, subject to any changes made, whether the contents of the statement were true 
The Lead Claim – Mr Aziz
26.	Mr Aziz gave evidence over two days on 19 and 20 May 2014. Whilst giving evidence on 19 May 2014, Mr Aziz indicated that there were certain documents that he would have liked to put in. He produced those documents on 20 May 2014 and I allowed him to put those documents in evidence and to give oral evidence explaining those documents. Mr Aziz was reminded on 19 May 2014 that he would have the opportunity to call other witnesses. He confirmed after he had given his evidence that he did not wish to call any witnesses. He confirmed that he did not wish to put in any further documentation. I also heard evidence from Mr Richard Preston, who is the head of intelligence services at Howich Farelly, a firm of solicitors, and Mr Thomas Inglis, who is employed as an insurance investigator. There is also an expert report by Mr DJ Turner, a consultant motor engineer, dated 10 August 2010. Questions in writing were put to him on behalf of Mr Aziz by letter dated 9 February 2011 and those questions were answered and addressed by a written document dated 9 November 2011. 
27.	The evidence finished on the afternoon of 20 May 2104. Both Mr Aziz and counsel for the 2nd Defendant indicated that they would wish to have time to consider the evidence before they made their submissions to the court. Submissions were therefore heard on Friday 23 May 2014. The 1st Defendant, Mr Ali, has played no part in the proceedings.
The Hearing of the Claims of Mr Jamil, Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem
28.	The three other claims were consolidated with Mr Aziz’s claim. They, too, were listed for trial commencing on 19 May 2014. Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem both attended, with interpreters, on 19 and 20 May 2014. 
29.	On 9 May 2014, a letter was received by the court office from Mr Jamil indicating that he had to go to Pakistan where an aunt was very ill and seeking an adjournment and indicating that Mr Augranzeb Khan had been authorised to contact him. By 9 May 2014, Mr Jamil had in fact already left for Pakistan. The request for an adjournment was therefore referred to me to deal with at the start of the hearing on 19 May 2014. At that hearing, Mr Khan informed me that Mr Jamil’s aunt had, sadly, died on 12 May 2014. I therefore adjourned the hearing of these three claims until 20 May 2014 and asked Mr Khan to contact Mr Jamil to inform him that the court wished him to return to England immediately for the hearing. 
30.	On 20 May 2014, Mr Khan informed the court that he had contacted Mr Jamil immediately after leaving court on 19 May 2014. Mr Khan informed me that Mr Jamil had said that he was doing his utmost to obtain a ticket to return from Pakistan to England. On Tuesday 20 May 2014, Mr Khan was asked to and did seek to contact Mr Jamil to inform him again that the court wished him to return to England for the hearing. Mr Khan informed the court that Mr Jamil’s mobile phone was turned off. A voice message was sent and a text was sent informing Mr Jamil that he should ensure that he attended at court no later than 10.30 on Thursday 22 May 2014. The three claims were adjourned until the morning of 21 May 2014 to enable matters to be kept under review. Mrs Kazmi was able to attend on the morning of 21 May 2014. I agreed that Mrs Saleem did not need to be in attendance first thing on the morning of Wednesday 21 May 2014 as she had back problems and she would remain contactable by telephone in case Mr Jamil returned to England and did, in fact, attend court on the Wednesday. 
31.	Mr Jamil did not attend court on Wednesday 21 May 2014. Mr Khan confirmed in an e-mail that he had gone to see Mr Jamil’s wife immediately after he had left court on Tuesday 20 May 2014. Mrs Jamil telephoned Mr Jamil in Pakistan and Mr Khan spoke to him and emphasised again how urgent it was that Mr Jamil return. Mr Jamil said that he was doing his best to get tickets. In the light of those circumstances, the case was adjourned to 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 21 May 2014. Mr Jamil did not attend court on that day. An e-mail was sent on Wednesday indicating that he would not be returning  from Pakistan for the hearing and setting out reasons why that was the case and promising to inform the court as soon as he returned to England. I treated that as, effectively, an application to adjourn the hearing. That application was refused and a full judgment, setting out the reasons for refusal, was given on 22 May 2014. 
32.	The case proceeded in Mr Jamil’s absence and I dealt with his claim, and those of Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem together. No evidence was called on his behalf. I heard evidence from Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem. They both confirmed after they had given their evidence that they did not wish to call any other witnesses. They confirmed that they did not wish to put in any further documentation. I also heard evidence in both claims from Mr Richard Preston, the head of intelligence services at Howich Farelly, and Mr Thomas Inglis, an  insurance investigator. There is also an expert report by Mr DJ Turner, a consultant motor engineer, dated 25 July 2011 which is given as evidence in all three claims. Submissions were made by Mrs Kazmi, Mrs Saleem and Mr Aziz and on behalf of the 2nd Defendants on 23 May 2014. The 1st Defendant, Mr Sherzad, played no part in the proceedings.
THE LAW 
33.	The law in relation to these claims is straightforward. They are claims for damages for personal injury arising out of the alleged negligence of a driver of a vehicle. In brief, one road user owes a duty to other road users to exercise reasonable care. In the event that one road user fails to exercise reasonable care, and that negligence causes damages to another road user, the person who failed to exercise reasonable care is liable for the damage caused. The claimants, therefore, have to demonstrate on a balance of probability that another road user failed to exercise reasonable care and that they suffered damage as a result of that other road user’s negligence. The real issue in the present proceeding is, however, a factual issue. The primary issue is whether the claimants have demonstrated that there was a road accident, as they allege, which caused them injury. If there were no road accident, the negligence that they say caused that accident could not have occurred. 
THE LEAD CLAIM – MR AZIZ
The Facts
34.	I summarise first Mr Aziz’s evidence. He said that he was driving his Ford Galaxy car, which he used for private hire work, on 7 April 2009. He said that he had been to a restaurant with two friends, Mr Mohammed Omar Liaqat (whom I shall refer to as Omar) and his younger brother, Mr Mohammed Osman Liaqat (whom I shall refer to as Osman). He said in his statement that he had collected them from their home address at about 4 p.m. on that day and they had gone to a restaurant to celebrate the birth of Omar’s child. Mr Aziz says that he was driving along at 5.30 p.m., after the meal, and instead of returning directly to Omar’s house, he decided to show him a short cut to the airport as Omar was a private hire driver who, a month before, had just joined the company where Mr Aziz worked. 
35.	Mr Aziz said in his statement that he had just turned into Gledhow Valley Road and had passed what he believed to be the second junction when a maroon coloured Vauxhall Vectra came out of the road to the left. Mr Aziz said that he was not able to brake or stop until after the other car had collided with his car. He estimated the car’s speed as 25 to 30 miles an hour. Mr Aziz estimated his own speed as 25 to 20 miles an hour. He said that he braked and his vehicle stopped shortly after impact. 
36.	He said that he got out and spoke to the other man who he said was an Asian man in his thirties of small and slight build who spoke little English but did speak Urdu. He gave his details as Ansar Ali and gave his address and telephone number. Mr Aziz said that the other man apologised and said it was his fault, that he was not injured but was insured. Omar, according to Mr Aziz, went mad and told the other man that he had nearly killed them and what good would insurance be in those circumstances. Mr Aziz said that his vehicle was damaged to the left side at the middle. He said that the airbag on the passenger side above the window inflated. 
37.	Mr Aziz gave three different versions of how he came to make his claim for damages through a company called the Claims Bureau and what happened to his car after the accident. In his witness statement (which he confirmed at the outset of his evidence was true), he said that he left his car locked and parked at the side Gledhow Valley Road. He said that he called a friend from work to take him home and he returned home at about 7 pm on 3 April 2009. He said that he then began to find out how to go about having the car recovered. He said that there were leaflets and business cards at his place of work advertising the Claims Bureau as an accident management company so he called that number and spoke to a person called Abid. He then went to their office in Leeds and Abid said he would take care of the things that needed to be done, including the recovery of Mr Aziz’s car and its storage until matters were resolved with the insurers. 
38.	On the morning of the 20 May 2014, on the second day that Mr Aziz was giving evidence, he was asked by counsel for the 2nd Defendant how it was that he contacted the Claims Bureau. After a long pause, Mr Aziz said that he had leaflets in his car giving details of the Claims Bureau. He said that he had telephoned the Claims Bureau later that day, that is, on the day of the accident.
39.	Mr Aziz also said that he did not intend to use the Claims Bureau as he wanted to go through his own insurers. Counsel for the 2nd Defendant then asked Mr Aziz why he had called the Claims Bureau if that were the case. Mr Aziz then gave a third account. He said that the person with whom he had had the accident had telephoned someone who had come down to the scene of the accident. That was a person from the Claims Bureau. That person had told him that he (the employee of the Claims Bureau) would get everything sorted out without Mr Aziz having to go through insurers. Mr Aziz instructed him then and there to move his car.
40.	Mr Aziz was then asked by counsel how he could reconcile that evidence with paragraphs 58 to 62 of his witness statement which is summarised in paragraph 37 above. Mr Aziz said that he was told by an employee of Claims Bureau to keep the statement nice and simple and that the more he put in the more complicated it would get for him later on. 
41.	Mr Aziz was asked by counsel how it was that the statement came to be prepared. Mr Aziz said that solicitors had telephoned him to say they were coming to his home to make a statement. He said that he went to the Claims Bureau and discussed with an employee of the Bureau what he (Mr Aziz) should say to the solicitor. The solicitor came to his house the next day and asked a series of questions. He left and later sent what Mr Aziz described as a printed version to Mr Aziz. He then took it to the Claims Bureau. He said he pointed out that the paragraphs explaining how he contacted the Claims Bureau were wrong. He said that it was also probably at that point that the employee at the Claims Bureau said that he should keep things nice and simple. Mr Aziz said that he had told his solicitors that the paragraphs were wrong but that they had told him to leave it as it was.
42.	Mr Aziz also said that he had recorded the conversation at the scene of the accident on his mobile phone. He also said that he had recorded three or four of the meetings with employees of the Claims Bureau. He did not tell any one else that he was recording what they were saying. He had transferred the recording of the telephone calls and meetings to his laptop but that had been stolen when his house was burgled in early November 2009. He had not provided a copy of the recordings to his solicitor.
43.	Mr Aziz was adamant that he would not have profited from any scheme to damage his car and then claim insurance. He gave evidence that he had bought the Ford Galaxy car in May 2008 for £7,000. He then spent £2,500 on insurance and also making changes such as changing the glass, installing radios, a fire extinguisher, and a first aid box, putting on new seat covers and so on, to ensure that it met the local authority’s requirements for private hire vehicles. The total cost was £11,065. He said that he had hoped to use the car for 5 years and he would make about £8,000 to £9,000 profit a year.
The Critical Issue 
44.	The first and critical factual question in Mr Aziz’s case is whether an accident occurred on 7 April 2009 in which another car drove into his Ford Galaxy car, whilst he was driving along Gledhow Valley Road, in Leeds.
45.	I am in no doubt, on the evidence that I have heard in this trial, that the accident described by Mr Aziz in his claim form and in his evidence did not occur. I have no doubt that, on the evidence before me, a Vauxhall Vectra Car did not drive into Mr Aziz’s car as he was driving along Gledhow Valley Road, with two friends in the car, at 5.30pm on 7 April 2009. I reach that conclusion for the following reasons.
46.	The first, and principal, reason for that conclusion is the expert evidence given in the form of an expert’s report by Mr D.J. Turner. He is a consultant motor engineer and is registered as a technician engineer with the chartered engineering institute. He is a member of a number of institutes and societies involved in the area of motor engineering. He is experienced in determining the consistency and compatibility of crash damage sustained by vehicles. He was provided with photographs of the damage to the vehicle taken approximately three weeks after the accident.
47.	He described the damage as extensive damage to the central areas of the near side involving two large areas of curved indentation into the doors at a height below the body side mouldings. Mr Aziz confirmed that there were indentations in the doors but thought that the panels in the photograph looked as if they were pressed in to a greater degree than was originally the case. He agreed that the car doors were dented but the dents were not as deep as in the photograph. 
48.	Mr Turner’s conclusions were are as follows:
“24. 	The deep intrusion into the side of the Galaxy is inconsistent with it being struck once by the front aspect of a Vauxhall Vectra but it is consistent with more than one impact by an object with a shelf like profile which engaged the doors at an angle of about 90° to the Galaxy’s long axis.
25.	The drag marks clearly evident on the side of the Galaxy are vertically aligned and there is no doubt it was stationary at impact, which is inconsistent with the accident circumstances.
26. 	The damage to the Galaxy is incompatible with contact by a Vauxhall Vectra in the circumstances described.”
49.	He based those conclusions on a detailed analysis of a number of features. These include the following. If, as alleged both vehicles were moving at the time of the collision as described by Mr Aziz, there would be horizontal abrasions on the vehicle (referred to as drag marks). If the vehicle being struck were stationary, there would be no lateral movement in that car but a short vertical movement as the vehicle moved on its suspension. There was no evidence of horizontal drag marks but clear evidence of vertical drag marks. Further, if the Vauxhall Vectra had struck the side of the Ford Galaxy car full frontal, then the contact would produce a similar crush through the span of the area of contact not two quite separate areas of deep intrusion as appears in the photographs of the Ford Galaxy. 
50.	That evidence alone satisfies me that the alleged accident did not occur as claimed. I am satisfied that there was no situation where the Ford Galaxy was being driven along a road and was struck once by a vehicle coming from the left. The expert evidence, which I accept, establishes that the accident did not happen as described in the particulars of claim.
51.	That conclusion is, however, reinforced by two further matters. First, Mr Preston gave evidence which I accept that insurance claims were made in relation to five alleged accidents involving five different vehicles, between 5 March 2009 and 29 September 2009. Insurance policies had been taken out in the name of five different individuals in relation to each of the vehicles said to have caused the accident very shortly before the alleged accident. In Mr Aziz’s case, the policyholder was said to be Mr Ali Ansar. The same bank details, that is the same account number and same sort code, were used at the inception of each of the five policies for each of the five different individuals. It is not credible that the same bank account were used to pay for five insurance policies for five different people. The inference that I draw is that the insurance policies were not genuinely taken out by the individuals named as the policy holder. The further inference that I draw is that it is unlikely that there was a genuine accident whereby a Mr Ali Ansar’s vehicle struck Mr Aziz’s vehicle, and Mr Ansar then identified himself and provided his insurance details.
52.	Secondly, I did not find Mr Aziz’s account of the immediate aftermath of the accident and way in which he came to contact the Claims Bureau to be credible. Mr Aziz gave three separate accounts. He first gave evidence that he left his car, locked and parked on the side of the Gledhow Road and found leaflets at his work place giving the details of the Claims Bureau and so he contacted them. On the second day of giving evidence, he said that he had leaflets in his car advertising the Claims Bureau and he rang them that evening. Later in his evidence, he said that the person he had had the accident with (Mr Ali Ansar) called someone down to the scene of the accident. That person came to the scene of the accident, said he worked for the Claims Bureau and said that he could sort the accident out without Mr Aziz having to go through his insurers. Mr Aziz said that he instructed that man to move his car for him. Mr Aziz’s accounts of the immediate aftermath of the alleged accident were changeable, inconsistent, and on occasions not credible. In relation to the last of the three accounts, no explanation was given as to why the person who caused the accident, and who spoke little English, called the Claims Bureau and arranged for someone to come down and agree to sort out Mr Aziz’s insurance and the removal of his car. No credible explanation was given as to why, if that were the true and full explanation of events, Mr Aziz did not say so immediately. Furthermore, this account has to be read in the context of the finding set out above that it is inherently unlikely that a Mr Ali Ansar ever genuinely took out insurance. For those reasons, I do not consider that Mr Aziz’s account of the immediate aftermath of the alleged accident and the way in which he contacted the Claims Bureau is true. I draw the inference that Mr Aziz is not telling the truth about those matters because the accident did not happen in the way that he alleged.  
Application of the law to the facts of Mr Aziz’s claim.
53.	Mr Aziz’s claim is that he was driving a Ford Galaxy car along Gledhow Valley Road on 7 April 2009. The claim alleges that another driver failed to give way and drove into Mr Aziz’s car. The claim alleges that the driver of the other car was negligent in that he drove at excessive speed, failed to brake steer or control the vehicle to avoid a collision, failed to see or heed Mr Aziz’s car, failed to keep a proper lookout, drove from a minor road into a major road when it was not safe to do so, failed to comply with the Give Way sign and exposed the claimant to a foreseeable injury.
54.	For the reasons given above, I am in no doubt on the evidence before me that the accident described in the claim form did not occur. Mr Aziz’s car was not struck by another car whilst Mr Aziz was driving his car along a road. The particulars of negligence are all predicated upon the driver of the other car being negligent in some way in emerging from a side road when Mr Aziz was driving along a major road. An accident of that kind did not occur. Thus Mr Aziz has failed to establish that the alleged negligence occurred. I therefore dismiss his claim for damages for personal injury. 
THE CLAIMS OF MR JAMIL, MRS KAZMI AND MRS SALEEM
The Facts
55.	I summarise first the evidence of Mrs Saleem and Mrs Kazmi. Mrs Saleem’s witness statement was read out to her in Urdu and she made various amendments to it. The essential core of Mrs Saleem’s evidence was that she and her friend, Mrs Kazmi, had been together in Leeds on the afternoon of 3 April 2009. They had flagged down a taxi and were passengers in that taxi which was driving along Brudenell Street. She gave evidence that the taxi was travelling at normal road speed. There was a bang from the left as a vehicle coming from the left collided with the taxi. Mrs Saleem said that she was thrown to the right. She was adamant that she was not thrown to the left. She was adamant that the airbag in the taxi did not inflate.
56.	Mrs Kazmi gave evidence. She had signed a witness statement dated 1 November 2010. However, Mrs Kazmi had sent the following letter dated 19 November 2013 to the 2nd defendant’s solicitor, which I reproduce in full:
“Your Ref: RMM/ab1/14051/1
Case Num: 2ir54647
Dear Sir/madam
I am writing to you to admit and want to tell the truth about the above fraudantly claim.
I do not want this to go any further and want to put an end to this matter. I have been much stressed about all this situation and wish I could bring the time back when I got involved in this matter. 
I am a lone parent and thought I could better my children’s life with a bit of extra money.
I did not think straight and was taken in by others over greed.
I am truly sorry for what I have done and the time that has been wasted.
I have wanted to come clean ages ago and was scared of the consequences and feared for my children and still fear that I will get attached and threatened.
I have no other friends and family to care for the children if anything happens to me.
I fear the safety for my children. Also I was scared I was getting billed for costs which I will not be able to pay.
Please except my apologies and do not let this matter go further to the courts.
Once again I am truly sorry. I have never committed any other offences in my life. I also do not want this confession to be known by other peoples as may be threaten why I have confessed the truth once this is revealed.
If you require further information I will be more than happy to discuss matters.”
57.	It was signed Farhana Kazmi, and recorded that it had been translated by Shaheen Hussain. Mrs Kazmi sent a further letter in March 2014 to the Civil Trial Centre, translated from Urdu to English by her daughter. That letter, which I reproduce in full, says this:
“Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to you to admit and tell the truth about the above fraud claim.
Before 3rd April 2009 Shamila Saleem (2IR54647) called me to her house. Her husband was also there and they told me they were planning on a false taxi accident claim. Shamilas husband told me that we will say that you and shamila were in the taxi when the accident takes place. I do not know if an accident did happen but me and Shamila Saleem were not in the taxi, it is all a lie.
I have been much stressed about all this situation and wish I could bring the time back when I got involved in this matter. I did not think straight and was taken in by others and over greed.
I am truly sorry for what I have done and the time that has been wasted. I have wanted to come clean ages ago and was scared of the consequences and feared for my children and still fear that I will get attacked and threatened.
I am a lone parent with two children, one aged 15 and the other 13 years old. I live in a council property and I have spoken to the council about moving house but they are not moving me. I feel that once my confesion is revealed me and my children will be in danger.
I have no other family or friend to care for my children if anything was to happen to me. I fear the safety of my children.
I am suffering from heart problem (for the reference I have attached a copy of the relevant hospital letter’s). Also I want to let you know that I have already confessed in Bradford County Court.
It has taken long for my confession because I was threatened by Shamila and her husband that if I pulled out of the case then I would have to pay all the legal costs.
Please accept my apologies, and once again I am truly sorry. I have not committed any other offences in my life. Also I do nto want this confession to be known by other people as I may be threatened as to why I have confessed.
Thank you for taking the time to read my confession and I request for your forgiveness and fair decision in this matter.”
58.	It is signed Farhana Kazmi and written in hand is the 13 March 2014 (the typed date at the top says 6 March 2014).  Mrs Kazmi gave evidence at the hearing. She confirmed that the contents of these two letters were true and correct and that the earlier witness statement was false. She said that she went to speak to an advice worker, Shaheen Hussain. Ms Hussain telephoned the 2nd Defendant’s solicitor and told him that Mrs Kazmi wished to have her claim struck out. The person she spoke to said that if the claim was false, then she should send in a correct statement and tell the truth. There was further discussion about whether or not Mrs Kazmi would go to prison and Mrs Kazmi understood the man to say that she would not go to prison if she told the truth.  Mrs Kazmi said that she was afraid of going to prison as she has young children to look after and no other family or friends in England who could do that. At that point, she said, she decided to write and tell the truth. She gave evidence that the case for compensation and the accident and the claim for personal injury were all false. She said none of it happened. She said that it was all pre-planned. She said that she was told that the money received for the accident would be divided into three parts, that she would keep one part and two parts would go to Mrs Saleem’s husband. She said she regretted what she had done and it was because of greed that she became involved. 
The Critical Issue 
59.	The first and critical factual question in the claims involving Mrs Kazmi, Mrs Saleem and Mr Jamil is whether an accident occurred on 3 April 2009 in which another car, a Vauxhall Corsa, drove into a taxi, the Toyota Avensis, whilst it was being driven along Brudenell Street in Leeds by Mr Jamil and carrying Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem as passengers.
60.	I am in no doubt, on the evidence that I have heard in this trial, that the accident described by Mr Jamil, Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem in their claim forms and the evidence given by Mrs Saleem did not happen. I have no doubt that, on the evidence before me, a Vauxhall Corsa did not drive into Mr Jamil’s car as he was driving along Brudenell Street with Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem as passengers on 3 April 2009. I reach that conclusion for the following reasons.
61.	The first reason for that conclusion is the expert evidence given in the form of an expert’s report by Mr D.J. Turner. As I have said, he is a consultant motor engineer and is registered as a technician engineer with the chartered engineering institute and is experienced in determining the consistency and compatibility of crash damage sustained by vehicles. He did not inspect the Toyota Avensis. He was, however, provided with photographs of the damage to the vehicle. 
62.	He described the damage as damage to the central areas of the near side as a crush occurring to the body panels extending form the forward part of the front door to the forward lower part of the rear wheel arch. The crush takes the form of a horizontal linear dent across the full width of the doors just above sill height. 
63.	His conclusion is that:
“The damage to the Avensis could be consistent with a single strike by the front of a Vauxhall Corsa however the evidence is that the Avensis was stationary when struck which is incompatible with the accident circumstances as reported by the claimants.”
64.	The basis for that conclusion is the following:
“The claimant says that he was moving forwards at between 25 and 30mph when the Corsa struck the nearside of his vehice. When two vehicles meet in such circumstances each are subjected to similar forces acting at right angles to each other. The relative lateral movement during contact is recorded within the damage in the form of horizontal marks and abrasions often referred to as ‘drag marks’. The linear dent within the doors of the Avensis could have been made by a horizontal linear object, which possibly was the bumper of the Corsa but within the damages all marks and abrasions are vertically aligned confirming that the Avensis was stationary when struck. No drag marks are evident within the damage above the height of the linear dent and no forward movement of the Avensis is recorded within the small dent to the sill which was possibly caused by the towing eye of the Corsa.”
65.	That evidence alone satisfies me that the alleged accident did not occur as claimed. I am satisfied that there was no situation where the Toyota Avensis was being driven along a road and was struck once by a vehicle coming from the left. The expert evidence, which I accept, establishes that the accident did not happen as described in the particulars of claim.
66.	That conclusion is reinforced by the following considerations. First, Mrs Kazmi has given clear evidence that the accident did not happen and was planned as a way of obtaining money. She had made a claim and put in a witness statement. She then regretted being drawn into the plan and decided to tell the truth. She says that there was no such accident and that the claims for compensation for personal injury are all false.
67.	I accept that evidence. I am satisfied that Mrs Kazmi was telling the truth when she wrote her letters dated 19 November 2013 and 13 March 2014. I accept the evidence that she gave in the witness box that the claim that an accident occurred involving a taxi driven by Mr Jamil and in which she and Mrs Saleem were passengers was false and was done for money. I find as a fact that Mrs Kazmi made such a claim originally and that she came to regret it and by November 2013 at the latest, she wished to tell the truth. I found Mrs Kazmi to be an honest witness who now genuinely regretted being drawn into these events, and who came to fear for her children and herself if she continued to lie. She came to believe that it would be better for her to tell the truth and, in my judgment, she did so when giving evidence. 
68.	I do not accept the evidence of Mrs Saleem that there was an accident on 3 April 2009 involving a taxi in which she and Mrs Kazmi were passengers. Her story is contradicted by the evidence of Mrs Kazmi and the engineering evidence which indicates that the Toyota Avensis was struck whilst it was stationary not whilst it was moving.
69.	There are two further areas where the evidence of Mrs Saleem about the alleged accident is contradicted by the engineer’s report. The engineer’s report expresses the opinion, which I accept, that the extent of the damage and the description of the violent movement of the occupants of the taxi would almost inevitably have caused the side airbags to deploy. Yet Mrs Saleem was adamant that the air bags were not inflated. Further, the engineer’s report explained that if the vehicle had been struck from the left, then any impact would have caused the passengers initially to be thrown to the left. Yet Mrs Saleem, during repeated questioning by counsel, was adamant that she did not move to the left but was thrown to the right. Those contradictions between the expert’s opinion as to what would have happened if an accident of the sort alleged had occurred, and what Mrs Saleem claimed occurred, reinforce my conclusion that Mrs Saleem is not telling the truth when she claims that she was in a vehicle which was struck by another car on that occasion.
70.	For completeness, I note that I do not accept as credible Mrs Saleem’s suggestion as to why Mrs Kazmi is now saying that there was no accident. Mrs Saleem says that Mrs Kazmi is scared of her former husband who is threatening to return to England and take away her children. Mrs Saleem says that Mrs Kazmi is saying that the accident did not happen, so that she can say to the local housing authority that she now feared for her safety so needs to be rehoused elsewhere. That suggestion is not credible. I cannot see why Mrs Kazmi would believe that it would help her to keep her children and obtain a housing transfer by telling the housing authority that the earlier claim was in fact false and that she was now telling the truth if the earlier claim were, in fact, true.
Application of the law to the facts of Mr Jamil’s, Mrs Kazmi’s and Mrs Saleem’s claims.
71.	The claims all allege that Mr Jamil was driving a Toyota Avensis taxi along Brudenell Road on 4 April 2009, with Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem as passengers. The claims allege that another driver failed to give way and drove into Mr Jamil’s car. The claims allege that the driver of the other car was negligent in that he drove at excessive speed, failed to brake steer or control the vehicle to avoid a collision, failed to see or heed Mr  Jamil’s car, failed to keep a proper lookout, drove from a minor road into a major road when it was not safe to do so, failed to comply with the Give Way sign.
72.	 For the reasons given above, I am in no doubt on the evidence before me that the accident described in the claims form did not occur. Mr Jamil’s car was not struck by another car whilst Mr Jamil was driving his car along a road. The particulars of negligence are all predicated upon the driver of the other car being negligent in some way in emerging from a side road when Mr Jamil was driving along a major road. An accident of that kind did not occur. Thus the claimants have failed to establish that the alleged negligence occurred. I therefore dismiss the claimant’s claim for damages for personal injury. 
CONCLUSIONS
73.	On the evidence before me, I am in doubt that no road traffic accidents of the sort alleged in the claim forms occurred. No car struck Mr Aziz’s Ford Galaxy on 7 April 2009, whilst he was driving along with two friends. No car struck Mr Jamil’s taxi on 3 April 2009 whilst he was carrying two passengers, Mrs Kazmi or Mrs Saleem. In the circumstances, there can have been no negligence of the sort alleged by the claimants. The claims of Mr Aziz, Mr Jamil, Mrs Kazmi and Mrs Saleem are dismissed.