Judge refuses whiplash damages as he criticises Britain&#39s &#39compensation culture&#39

The court heard it took 18 days for her to complain to her GP about any soreness, and Miss Hennessy waited a week just before she went to her doctor to report any injury as a consequence of the affect.

“It is proper that I should go on to record that I do not accept the proof of both of them, which I find to be inaccurate, evasive, partial and innovative for an improper pecuniary motive,” stated the judge.

“This is yet a even more illustration of the nationwide phenomenon of false whiplash claims currently being made and it is in an try to stem the tide that I do not shrink from generating firm adverse findings towards them”.

Mr Justice Mostyn said expert healthcare evidence which appeared to back up the accounts of each females was so comparable it cast doubt on the expert objectivity of the skilled. In identical terms, health-related reports explained each had suffered “nervous shock and psychological trauma” and endured “recurrent obtrusive memories of the accident and obsessional thoughts as to how she may possibly have been significantly injured.”

The 2 reviews, prepared by a advisor doctor, stated the women had described their physical signs as “severe and constant”, obtaining taken several months to clear up.

Nonetheless the court heard that there was no visible damage to the car right after the accident and neither female reported any damage at the time or asked for time off work.

Mr Justice Mostyn additional: “Clearly it is, in terms of probability, nearly inconceivable that every single of these females would have suffered physically or mentally in exactly the exact same way.”

The court heard Denise Withey, the driver of the Skoda Octavia, had described the accident as minor and her account was backed up by Raymond Stevens, a front seat passenger.

Miss Withey had taken images of the automobile which showed no damage was caused by the influence, and Mr Justice Mostyn described her as a “completely truthful witness.”

He explained: “The contemporaneous materials obviously demonstrates that the effect was trivial that no injury was induced to the motor vehicle no hurt was suffered by the front passengers and that any harm suffered by the rear passengers was trivial, of quick duration and consequently non-compensable”.

He mentioned Miss Withey had no motive to lie and accepted she drove at minimal speed and the effect was small.

He also accepted Miss McIntyre had right away shouted about her neck and said she could make a compensation declare, and dismissed the instances of both ladies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *