alleged car accident appeal

Breadwinner

I get that. Here's the thing, however - Judge used it against me, citing the fact that I "decided" (according to her) not to use my relative as a witness, for doubting my credibility, claiming I didn't use relative because of fears my story wouldn't be corroborated. So you see the problem not using my relative as a witness (because solicitor told me I couldn't) caused me.

Crazy_Jamie

Onan has already correctly stated that there does not seem to be any real ground of appeal. It is very difficult in any event to appeal findings of fact, and whilst you're unhappy about the decision you seem to blame your solicitors for that in not ensuring you had the right evidence rather than the Judge for misinterpreting the evidence that was before him.

If your solicitor did indeed fail to provide evidence that you had highlighted and suggested that you can't use a relative as a witness, your recourse would be to use the firm's complaints procedure and then escalate the complaint to the Legal Ombudsman if necessary. Any appeal in the county court must be made within 21 days of the decision, though as I've said it does not sound like that is a viable route here.

Just to mop up some other points....

keep_pedalling wrote:

Assuming this was a small claims court running up the cost of a barrister is way over the top.

It sounds like it was insurance backed on both sides, in which case being represented by a barrister is not unusual.

keep_pedalling wrote:

Don't take the judge's comments personally, their decision is based on the evidence presented on the day and the balance of probability on who is telling the truth.

This is quite right and important to note. It's very unusual, especially in a small claims context like this, for a Judge to actively find that a person is lying, and I strongly suspect that s/he did not actually say that you were lying, rather that they prefer the other side's evidence (or words to that effect) due to the issues that you've highlighted. But irrespective, Judges can only make decisions based on the evidence before them on the day, so it's absolutely true to say that you shouldn't take such decisions personally, because they are not personal.

Auntie-Dolly wrote:

How did it end up in court? Would your insurance company not have sorted this for you?

It is not unusual for a case to end up in court where the parties fail to resolve the issue of who was to blame for the accident. In fact, where both parties are insurance backed it is more likely because economics don't tend to come in to play as much.

FutureGirl wrote:

They could have been but don't think their statement would have been given much weight as they aren't independent, and will clearly be bias.

This is a commonly held view, but not a correct one. Relatives and friends are not 'independent', but they should still be called as witnesses, and their evidence will be assessed in the same way as any other witness. Suggesting that they would be 'biased' implies that they would potentially alter their evidence to favour the person that they know, but people rarely do that consciously. Their evidence may, of course, be unreliable for other reasons, but equally there are endless examples of cases where the evidence of a relative or friend has tipped the case in that party's favour. I appreciate that solicitors regularly give the advice that a friend or relative should not be called as a witness, but frankly generally speaking they are wrong about that.

Breadwinner

A little update: filed a complaint with my solicitor and insurer. Solicitor is denying negligence, claiming the engineer's report was never intended for use in court and furthermore didn't need to be signed for that reason. Never heard of such a thing.

csgohan4

Breadwinner wrote: »

A little update: filed a complaint with my solicitor and insurer. Solicitor is denying negligence, claiming the engineer's report was never intended for use in court and furthermore didn't need to be signed for that reason. Never heard of such a thing.

what a joke of a solicitor. Time to go higher up in the complaint

FutureGirl

If it's used in court as evidence, a signature will be required. If the solicitor never intended on using it in court - why did they include it in the bundle for the barrister?

Breadwinner

Same question.

My barrister looked shocked when claimant's barrister pointed out to the judge that the document wasn't valid as professional evidence in any event, apart from not being signed anyway.

Solicitor now saying the engineer's report was "internal document never intended for litigation". Yet sent on as part of my defence bundle as evidence??

Crazy_Jamie

There is certainly something of an inconsistency there. It's not unusual for documents to be included in a bundle that might not hold much weight, but if they are there to make an important evidential point they should be done properly.

At the same time, if the issue is whether or not conclusions can be drawn from the damage caused to your vehicle, it may be that a report from a forensic engineer would have been required. Expert evidence is generally not allowed on the small claims track, and your solicitor may therefore may taken the view (quite reasonably) that there was no real prospect of getting permission to rely on a valid expert's report. The alternative therefore is to include the other report on the off chance that it sways the Judge's view.

I'm not saying that the latter is what happened; I'm simply advancing a version of events that may explain the solicitor's actions.