Insurance Team Successes - July 26

PJ-v-Newcastle City Council

North Shields County Court - May 2026

Chris Threlkeld was successful in this trial for our city council client.

The claim related to an accident said to have occurred on 15th May 2022. The Claimant claimed that he was returning to his home address after visited a friend nearby.

As he crossed the road, he allegedly tripped over a loose/ raised kerb and fell forwards suffering a fracture to his right elbow. In terms of liability, whilst no admissions had been made, the Judge found that the defect shown in the claimant’s photos presented as a danger in the highway which was not a surprise. Our concerns, and why the claim was defended had more to do with causation and the unreliability of the claimant’s account.

There was inconsistency as to the mechanics of the claimant’s route. We were also concerned about the lighting issue, i.e. the Claimant claimed that his accident happened at 8.30pm and it was dark at that time due to poor lighting. Our witness evidence suggested street lights in the area were working fine but more to the points unset on that date would have been 9.05pm so it would not have been dark in any event. Surprisingly the Judge did not seem to be overly concerned with this inconsistency.

Yet another issue was the fact that this was the Claimant's second claim against the city council for an accident said to have happened in virtually identical circumstances. When put to the claimant he shrugged and said he couldn’t remember making the previous claim! Again, the judge didn’t really pick up on this but had his own concerns

The first related to the fact that the “friend” he was supposed to be visiting could not be traced. The second was something that often catches out mistaken or fraudulent claimants-discrepancies in the account given at A and E which doesn’t accord with the later pleaded claim.

During cross-examination the Claimant consistently blamed the cause of his accident on a high or raised kerb. That evidence corresponded with his photographs in which the height of the kerb had been measured, thus suggesting it was the height of the kerb that caused him to fall.

When the Claimant attended at A&E the following day, the notes recorded 'Patient states he [redacted] a low kerb and fell forward yesterday, patient thinks he landed on his elbow'.

Adding these two points to other inconsistencies with the Claimant's evidence in the contemporaneous medic permitted the Judge to make a finding that the Claimant was not certain as to where his accident happened or what had caused it and on that basis the Judge dismissed the claim.

The Judge did add at the conclusion that he did not believe that this was a fundamentally dishonest claim; just that the Claimant was mistaken as to what had caused him to fall. That was perhaps the claimant’s only bit of luck that day! Another good result for Chris and our investigators which saved the council many thousands of pounds.

MJS -v- Sunderland City Council

Chris Trelkeld was also pleased to report the Claimant’s discontinuance of a well advanced claim in this case.

This was another alleged tripping accident (particularly badly pleaded suggesting the kerb had “jutted out” whatever that means) where the claimant’s story was full of inconsistencies.

However so far as liability is concerned, we were denying the claim on liability under a s58 defence i.e. reasonable inspection regime  (which was supported by our council witnesses) We were confident that that Defence would succeed.

Causation was also not admitted and the Claimant was put to proof as to how the accident occurred and that his injuries were sustained as a result and that he was injured to the extent that he claimed. His alleged losses were also not admitted.

The most obvious “red flag” from our investigations was that the Claimant was in Keswick on the day of his alleged accident and not in his home city where the accident was said to have happened. (although it was accepted he may have simply got the date wrong).

We had lots of other 'little' factual causation concerns in terms of the time of the accident, the actual mechanics of the fall, his direction of travel, what he did afterwards and the lack of any witness statement from his father, who was said to have witnessed the aftermath and was also said to have helped the Claimant with his job. Overall the inconsistencies began to point to a false claim.

Nevertheless, it was felt that, despite these concerns, there remained an outside chance that the claim would succeed. Given that recovery of costs was by no means certain even if fundamental dishonesty was found, and the council  would have incurred substantial costs at trial, it was agreed a drop hands discontinuance  (ie each party bears its own costs) was the sensible outcome. The claimant sensibly agreed!

More good work by Chris and the investigators especially in preparing excellent witness evidence to support the defence.

DS v GH (Landlord) and XX and YY

Grace Pickup (Solicitor Insurance)  reports an excellent result in a claim where we acted for 2 defendants (part of the same construction group) so there was no conflict of interest.

The claim was brought against 3 Defendants in total. The first defendant GH for whom we did not act was the owner of the property concerned.

 The Claimant allegedly sustained an injury at her rented home as she was descending the stairs of the property when the third step from the bottom collapsed causing her foot to go through it causing injury to her left ankle. The Claimant was a tenant of GH. As well as raising allegations against her landlord, she pleaded that our two clients were liable as the construction developer. This was on the basis that a 10 year NHBC Insurance agreement applied.

We denied liability on the basis that our clients were simply not aware of any defects nor were they involved in any subsequent repairs – how could our clients be expected to fix something of which they had no knowledge? Additionally, we denied liability on the basis that the Claimant was technically not able to rely upon the NHBC warranty, as she was not the owner of the premises.  

Thanks to a robust witness statement obtained from the Client, and shortly before the matter was listed for trial the First Defendant opted to settle the claim in full and the Claimant discontinued her claim against our clients on the proviso we would bear our own costs.  This was an excellent result for Grace and for our valued client.

AD v Bury Council

Yet another success for Chris Threlkeld (Associate Insurance). This one in late June at Burnley County Court.

The claim was in respect of an accident alleged to have occurred on 17thMarch 2024 on a street  within the council’s jurisdiction.

The claimant pleaded that as he was walking down the side of a shop premises (taking that route as it was a 'short cut' to the bus stop), his foot went into a sunken kerbstone located on the corner of the pavement at the junction of 2 streets causing him to fall and suffer a soft tissue injury to his left knee.

At the beginning of his evidence, he amended his witness statement to say that it was his left foot that encountered the defect (his statement had not been clear as to which foot it was).

He was with his partner E and explained they were getting the bus into town to go for a meal. Although he was in so much pain it was causing him to limp he decided to carry on to town but first went back to the shop to report his accident to the shopkeeper (as he initially believed that the land at the side of the shop was their responsibility). He attended a walk-in centre the next day to insist his knee injury be “recorded”.

Some difficulty was caused by the claimant revealing that he could not read or write so that his witness statements and other documents had to be read out to him (although on occasions he did seem to pick up on written material!)

It certainly didn’t help the claimant that although witness statements had been served from his partner E and he shopkeeper neither were in attendance at court.

Despite his medical records being littered with entries relating to alcohol misuse and a problem with alcohol, the Claimant insisted those entries were not true; he did not, nor had ever had any problems with alcohol and the entries indicating that he did were as a result of someone else’s opinion.

Therefore, he maintained that he had not been drinking at the time of this accident.

As for previous claims although the claimant recalled making about 3 “over a long period of time” evidence was produced of 8 purported past claims. However, the Judge did not seem overly concerned by his claims history (although for us we would always consider such an active claims history to be a significant red flag).

The real problem for the claimant, and what did seem to influence the judge was his inability to describe clearly the mechanism of his supposed fall and knee injury. It was put to him several times and in a variety of different ways for him to explain what had happened. His standard response was, 'I was walking along and I just fell onto my knee'. He could not explain what he experienced, i.e. did he trip, slip, step down into something, etc, nor where he landed or what he landed on;

The Judge was totally unconvinced by the Claimant's account and summed up the point by saying that not only was she not satisfied that the alleged defect was the cause of his fall, but she believed that the Claimant himself could not say/did not know what had caused him to fall or where exactly his fall had occurred. She did not however go so far as to find that the Claimant was being dishonest and instead believed that a fall had been suffered in that general area and he had at some point assumed that the sunken kerbstone must have been the cause of his fall, but he just was not sure/did not know either.

Due to the finding that the Claimant could not prove his claim, the claim was dismissed. However, as Fundamental Dishonesty was not found, (perhaps a kind interpretation by the judge?)  QOCS protection therefore applies and our client is unable to recover any costs from the Claimant. Since the Claimant has not worked since 2007 and has been on benefits during that time any order for costs would almost certainly have been unenforceable in any event.

Clearly a great deal of investigation and preparation went into securing this excellent result for our local authority client.

AR v X Housing Group Limited

Hot on the heels of her first trial win as a qualified solicitor Jade Johnson  (Solicitor, Insurance) is delighted to report another this one with the assistance of Jozi-Leigh Hathaway.(Trainee Solicitor Apprentice, Insurance)   As Jade very fairly points out however since the Claimant didn’t show, it would have been a bad day at the office had we lost!

Nevertheless, it was undoubtedly because of attention to detail and proper preparation for trial which clearly persuaded the Claimant that she was up against it.

AR brought a claim for housing disrepair alleging various issues throughout the property and that she had given notice of the same to the Defendant Landlord on numerous occasions since November 2019 but to no avail. The Claimant’s claim was supported by expert evidence from a surveyor who identified actionable disrepair at the property totalling £1550.00.  Upon receipt of the Letter of Claim we obtained our own expert evidence on behalf of the Defendant Landlord.  The Defendant’s expert identified actionable disrepair totalling only £28.41 and upon review of the contact records and repair history it became apparent that the Landlord had not been on notice in respect of the same prior to receipt of the letter of claim.  Liability was therefore denied. This was not accepted by the Claimant who went on to issue proceedings. 

The Defendant maintained their denial of liability and proceeded to a final hearing. Late in the afternoon on the day before the trial, the Claimant made an application to the Court for the trial to be vacated on the basis that the Claimant was unable to attend due to an unforeseen emergency.  The Court confirmed the application would be dealt with on the morning of the trial.  The application was dismissed on the basis that no detail with regards to the ‘unforeseen emergency’ had been provided and the trial would therefore go ahead. The Claimant’s Counsel had been instructed to continue without the presence of the Claimant and the trial ensued.  The Judge ultimately found for the Defendant and dismissed the claim noting the Defendant’s adequate system of logging and executing repairs. We believe the outcome would have been the same even if the Claimant had attended. Again detailed investigation of records and reports was the key to a successful outcome for a valued client.

LH v X Housing Group Limited

And that same client will be further delighted with a trial success. Sarah (Sid) Davisworth (Partner Insurance) ran this housing claim.

The Claimant was alleging psychological injury following a flood at her home which she rented from the defendant. Sewage overflowed from the drains and flooded her property which caused her initial distress and the lasting smell/damage continued to be a source of distress. However, her original particulars of claim (POC) was poorly pleaded, as it failed to identify  the actual defect she was complaining of, but included broad allegations as to the failure to have a system of maintenance and repair and failure to inspect. The claim proceeded to a first trial where  the Trial Judge queried the basis of her claim.  That hearing was ultimately adjourned with the Claimant being granted permission to amend her Statement of Case. 

Sarah anticipated the claimant and her solicitors would at that point throw in the towel, but they persevered, made a further Calderbank offer to settle, and filed an amended POC. The amended POC was more specific pleading breach of s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and focused on the duty to maintain the structure and exterior of the property including the drains. It was not disputed that neither party knew of the issue with the drain prior to the flood, so the claimant’s new focus was on the defendant’s response once they had been made aware and what she perceived as a delay.  This was disputed and on behalf of our client and with evidence in support we argued that their response was reasonable. The leak was stopped in 24 hours and repairs were actioned in 2 weeks.  Dehumidifiers were provided and professional cleaners arranged.  The judge agreed that this response was reasonable and dismissed claim. 

The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs but as there was a personal injury element QOCS applies so these are not to be enforced without leave of the court. Unfortunately, this cloak of protection for a claimant means that some claims are pursued to trial that  probably shouldn’t be. Nevertheless our client will be pleased with the sweet smell of success.