A High Court judge has rejected contempt allegations against two individuals over a personal injury claim – despite a county court finding that the claim was fundamentally dishonest.
In Aviva Insurance Limited v Atiquillar Nadeem & Anor His Honour Judge Tindal said that the dishonesty ruling which had prompted the defendant in the PI claim to pursue contempt proceedings had several flaws.
The judge was also critical of the claimant lawyers initially involved, describing the unnamed practitioners’ behaviour as a ‘classic case of how a solicitor should not conduct personal injury litigation’.
The application for committal was against a taxi driver and his passenger who said they were involved in a collision in 2018. The passenger made the claim, with the taxi driver giving a witness statement. The other driver involved admitted liability but her evidence crucially suggested that the passenger in the car was not the claimant, Atiquillar Nadeem, but a bald white man.
The case came for trial before Deputy District Judge Goodman at Willesden County Court in June 2021.
In the contempt judgment, Tindal said it was apparent from the transcript that the DDJ was becoming increasingly irritated with Nadeem’s evidence. Part-way through his evidence, Goodman had told Nadeem: ‘You’re just making this up, are you not?’
Tindal noted in his ruling: ‘All judges have thought that, but it is hardly ideal to say it during evidence.’
The DDJ did not invite further submissions on the merits or credibility of Nadeem and simply began to make her oral fundamental dishonesty ruling. She started her judgment: ‘I have rarely seen a case where the evidence is so inconsistent as that before me today. I have been hearing cases for over 20 years and this is one of the worst examples I have heard.’
She described Nadeem as ‘completely unreliable’ and described his claim as ‘an attempt by the man to make money out of the legal system’. Asked by Nadeem’s barrister whether he might have the opportunity to respond to the defendant’s application for fundamental dishonesty, the DDJ replied: ‘No… the finding of fundamental dishonesty stands.’
Tindal accepted the ‘trenchant’ ruling was a ‘passing aberration in DDJ Goodman’s long judicial career’ but said he should give limited weight to it as part of the contempt applications. He concluded that Nadeem was in fact in the taxi and therefore that committal proceedings must fail.
The judge said Nadeem’s first firm of solicitors, who had since come off the record, ‘did not distinguish themselves by their care in running his case’. He suggested that solicitors had filled out a questionnaire giving details of the accident, as evidenced by his name being written out incorrectly.
Tindal added: ‘I am sure (as in fairness was DDJ Goodman) that Mr Nadeem’s personal injury claim was presented with something close to incompetence on behalf of his previous solicitors. Likewise, DDJ Goodman approached her task, doubtless under a busy list, in a way which I am sure she in retrospect would recognise was far from ideal.’
17 Readers' comments