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

Forgotten your password?

Heer v Afzal & Zenith Insurance Management Limited, Leeds County Court, 22 June 2005

22 August 2005
The issues

Low Speed Impact – Road Traffic

The facts

The Claimant had a road traffic accident on 22nd February 2004. The Defendant admitted that contact between the vehicles concerned was caused by the First Defendant’s negligence. Liability was denied on the basis that no injury or damage was caused. The Defendant’s case was that the impact was at such a slow speed that the Claimant could not have been injured nor could his vehicle have suffered the damage which he claimed.

The Claimant had said he was thrown forward in his seat when the vehicle was touched and that there was transfer of paint from the Defendant’s vehicle to the Claimants. The Defendant said there was no damage to the Claimant’s vehicle nor had there been any paint transfer. He said the impact was light a light touch of the kerb with the wheels.

The expert evidence was to the effect that the impact was less than 3 miles or 4.8 kilometres per hour.

The evidence of Dr Seer was that he would not expect injury below 6 kilometres per hour.

The decision

The Defendant’s evidence was credible. The Claimant’s evidence was not. The engineering evidence was accepted namely that the speed of the impact did not exceed 4.8 kilometres per hour. Dr Seer’s evidence did not conclude the issue because following Armstrong v First York the Court could find for the Claimant on the issue of sustaining injury despite such expert evidence from the Doctor or another expert. The Claimant was not a truthful witness and was fundamentally unconvincing. He had either successfully mislead his Doctor or was able to rely on an injury from an earlier accident.

Claim dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


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.


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