0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Curtis v Borough of Broxbourne Council, Luton County Court, 9 December 2003

17 December 2003
The issues

Tripping claim – Credibility of Claimant and Claimant’s witnesses untrue witness statements.

The facts

This claim concerned an alleged tripping accident on 27th October 2000 against the Defendant Highway Authority. The Claimant said she tripped on an uneven paving slab, raised by about 2 inches. The Defendant said however that the uneven paving slab was repaired about a month before the Claimant’s alleged fall. An “independent” witness allegedly witnessed the accident and subsequent repairs. There was therefore a significant issue of credibility, fuelled by a delay of about 3 weeks before the Claimant sought medical attention and other entries in the GP notes, which indicated that the Claimant had suffered a series of physical assaults before and after the alleged incident date. One of the assaults, a month before the alleged trip, resulted in similar injuries to that allegedly sustained in the trip. The Defendant contended that there had been no trip.

The decision

1. There were inconsistencies in the oral evidence of the Claimant, her boyfriend and the “independent” witness.

2. The District Judge found it difficult to accept, mechanically, how the Claimant could have injured the top of her head in the fall.

3. The Judge preferred the Defendant’s evidence that repairs had been completed approximately one month before the alleged trip.

4. The Judge dismissed the claim, saying that he was not satisfied that the accident occurred in the way in which the Claimant said it did. The Claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs.

Claim dismissed.

Comments

For further information about this case please contact Darren Salter at darrensalter@veitchpenny.co.uk

focus on...

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.

View

Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up