Motoring Small Claims Court - Advice

feralspecies

All,

My wife and I are due to attend court on Monday as we are pursuing a 3rd party lorry driver for hitting my Wife's car at a junction.

In short, nearly 2 years ago my wife was approaching a t-junction in a busy car park. On her right, a lorry was parked about 3 metres from the junction, blocking parked cars with his hazards on. My wife waited at the junction for a while ensuring it was safe to go, as she pulled out to turn left, the lorry then moved off with his hazards still on and hit my wife's car, pushing her into the curb.The lorry continued driving for a a second until he realised he wasn't moving and stopped. Clearly had parked too close to a junction and couldn't actually see below his cab. It event states this in the 3rd parties statement.

The case was all looking pretty clear cut until about 8 months after the accident, a witness statement for the 3rd party appeared from nowhere. Our solicitors then chose to drop the case. However, I thought this witness seemed dodgy (a Facebook search showed he was also a lorry driver) and his statement was really far fetched. It essentially stated he was watching my wife drive round the whole car park, referencing her mental state, direction, and then a detailed (yet incorrect) account of the accident. I then went down to where the witness suggested he was sitting eating McDonald's (focusing on my wife the entire time apparently) and took photos, which proved he couldn't actually see anything he was referring too in his statement. The solicitor then picked up the case again as they agreed we could discredit the witness, and we are due in court on Monday.

My question is this, is discrediting a witness a legitimate strategy in a small claims court, and based on the account I've stated above,and providing our barrister does her job properly, the lorry driver is in the wrong for pulling off with Hazards and being parked too close to a T-Junction restricting his view of cars below?

Without the benefit of a crystal ball, would be useful to get some opinions to judge how Monday will go.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

feralspecies wrote: »

All,

My wife and I are due to attend court on Monday as we are pursuing a 3rd party lorry driver for hitting my Wife's car at a junction.

In short, nearly 2 years ago my wife was approaching a t-junction in a busy car park. On her right, a lorry was parked about 3 metres from the junction, blocking parked cars with his hazards on. My wife waited at the junction for a while ensuring it was safe to go, as she pulled out to turn left, the lorry then moved off with his hazards still on and hit my wife's car, pushing her into the curb.The lorry continued driving for a a second until he realised he wasn't moving and stopped. Clearly had parked too close to a junction and couldn't actually see below his cab. It event states this in the 3rd parties statement.

The case was all looking pretty clear cut until about 8 months after the accident, a witness statement for the 3rd party appeared from nowhere. Our solicitors then chose to drop the case. However, I thought this witness seemed dodgy (a Facebook search showed he was also a lorry driver) and his statement was really far fetched. It essentially stated he was watching my wife drive round the whole car park, referencing her mental state, direction, and then a detailed (yet incorrect) account of the accident. I then went down to where the witness suggested he was sitting eating McDonald's (focusing on my wife the entire time apparently) and took photos, which proved he couldn't actually see anything he was referring too in his statement. The solicitor then picked up the case again as they agreed we could discredit the witness, and we are due in court on Monday.

My question is this, is discrediting a witness a legitimate strategy in a small claims court, and based on the account I've stated above,and providing our barrister does her job properly, the lorry driver is in the wrong for pulling off with Hazards and being parked too close to a T-Junction restricting his view of cars below?

Without the benefit of a crystal ball, would be useful to get some opinions to judge how Monday will go.

Your legal representative obviously thinks you have a case so listen to them. After all that's what you're paying for.

AdrianC

I'm going to ask one really stupid question...

Why isn't your insurer doing all this?

feralspecies

Not a stupid question - I should have said, This is through insurance + we have legal cover.

Car_54

feralspecies wrote: »

Not a stupid question - I should have said, This is through insurance + we have legal cover.

OK. You have a barrister. Why are you looking for legal advice from random strangers on this forum?

feralspecies

Well i suspect we are all joined this forum so we can ask and answer questions to and from random strangers - sometimes you get nice strangers, sometimes you don't. Appreciate the input either way.

unholyangel

No one can predict how a court will go. They'll listen to each version, decide what the facts of the case are and then apportion liability.

If your insurer is fighting it then they at least think they have a reasonable prospect of success. Particularly if the losses in question aren't astronomical. The lower chance of success, the more disproportionate the costs involved of fighting it are.

Also, sorry but I have to ask....how exactly do you block a stationary object?

tacpot12

Challenging a witness statement is valid in any UK court, but you may not persuade the judge to ignore the witness statement. It will come down to how the judge sees the case on the day. Keep your challenges to what can be proven objectively.

You say that the witness 'suggested' that he was sitting in McDonalds. If all the rebuttal on this one point and he says in court (if he attends) that actually he was sat somewhere else and could see the things he said he saw, are there other points on which you can rebut enough of the witness statement to make the difference? Hopefully the witness will not attend and the judge will see that the statement is false.

If you have evidence of that the original lorry driver and the witness have conspired against your wife, you might be more successful in asking the judge to order that the lorry driver pays all your costs.

I would advise you not to cast any aspersions on the witness, e.g. don't mention in court that he is a lorry driver.

AdrianC

feralspecies wrote: »

Not a stupid question - I should have said, This is through insurance + we have legal cover.

Then the case management is in their hands, not yours.

Going back to your original question - yes, if a witness statement is demonstrably false, then of course it's legitimate to show as much.

Are you sure it's small claim, though?

Car_54

feralspecies wrote: »

Well i suspect we are all joined this forum so we can ask and answer questions to and from random strangers - sometimes you get nice strangers, sometimes you don't. Appreciate the input either way.

OK, to answer your original question "is discrediting a witness a legitimate strategy", the answer is yes, but only your barrister can do it, by asking the right questions of that and other witnesses.


You can't just jump up and shout "He's a liar!" Or rather you can, but you'll be slapped down and it won't help your case.

Dr_Crypto

Yes, it is a very common strategy and is often deployed to deal with an opposition witness. “Now, Officer, you say you saw my client running away from the bank. Are you sure it was him? Not just another 6ft male with one arm dressed as an oompah lumpha?”