Legal victory in low-speed collision, high injury claim case

  • Secured over £29,000 in savings

  • Successfully had both claims dismissed at trial

  • Protected costs exposure by making Part 36 offers

Background

In this case, the policyholder reported a low-speed collision with the rear of the claimant’s vehicle. Engineering evidence supported this, confirming light damage to the rear of the claimant’s vehicle. The damage claim for the vehicle was straightforward and settled without issue.

However, personal injury claims were then submitted by both occupants of the claimant vehicle. Each claimant provided medical evidence, alleging a wide range of symptoms including neck, back, hip and chest pain, as well as dizziness, tinnitus and blurred vision. The solicitors acting for the claimants sought damages of £11,000 and £7,564 respectively.

Given the minor nature of the incident, and the extent of the injuries claimed, concerns were raised. One red flag was that one claimant had a known history of tinnitus but had not disclosed it to the medical experts. Other inconsistencies in the claimants’ accounts led to the matter being referred to the Special Investigations Unit for further scrutiny.

How we helped

Our team immediately identified several red flags that called the credibility of the personal injury claims into question. We engaged with the claimant solicitors to raise our concerns and, to protect our insurer client’s position on costs, made Part 36 offers of £3,000 to each claimant.

Despite these reasonable offers, the claimant solicitors rejected them and issued proceedings. Keoghs were instructed to take on the defence of the claims. Our legal team worked closely with counsel to prepare for trial, focusing on the inconsistencies and the lack of plausibility in the claimant’s evidence.

At trial, our counsel conducted a robust cross-examination of both claimants. Their testimony proved to be inconsistent and unconvincing when placed under scrutiny.

Outcome

The judge ruled in favour of the defence, finding both claimants lacking in credibility and dismissing the claims entirely. While the judge stopped short of making a finding of fundamental dishonesty, the dismissal of both claims was still a decisive win for our client.

As a result, we achieved a cost saving of over £29,000 in damages and claimant solicitors’ costs for our insurer client.

Got a case you’d like to talk to us about? Get in touch with us today.

Recent case studies

View All

    Keep up to date with Davies

    By clicking Submit you agree to receive email from Davies. For further details about how your information will be used, please visit our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    Our Solutions

    Learn More
    DISCOVER MORE