Grubb v Finlay

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle collision on 22 May 2011, when the Defendant negligently reversed a Peugeot vehicle into a stationary Subaru driven by the Plaintiff. The impact caused significant damage to the Subaru and injury to the Plaintiff and his passenger. The Plaintiff sought damages for personal injury and related losses. The Defendant admitted liability but contested the extent and causation of the injuries claimed by the Plaintiff. The court heard extensive evidence from lay and expert witnesses before reaching its decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant was liable for the collision and consequent injuries to the Plaintiff.
2. The nature, extent, and duration of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of the accident.
3. Whether the Plaintiff’s symptoms and complaints beyond a period of approximately twelve months post-accident were causally linked to the accident.
4. The appropriate assessment and quantum of damages payable to the Plaintiff.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Plaintiff)

• The Plaintiff claimed that the accident caused significant injury, including myofascial pain syndrome and psychological symptoms, which persisted beyond twelve months.
• The Plaintiff relied on expert evidence supporting the genuineness of his injuries and symptoms, including nerve conduction studies and clinical assessments.
• The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s surveillance and litigation conduct adversely affected his psychological well-being.
• The Plaintiff sought damages including solatium, loss of earnings, and other heads of claim totaling £182,880.80.

Appellee's Arguments (Defendant)

• The Defendant admitted liability for the collision but challenged the credibility and reliability of the Plaintiff’s evidence.
• The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s claim was fundamentally dishonest and that symptoms beyond twelve months were not causally linked to the accident.
• The Defendant presented evidence suggesting inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s account and questioned the extent of injury and loss claimed.
• The Defendant sought a decree of absolvitor (dismissal of the claim).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully assessed the credibility and reliability of witnesses, noting that issues of honesty were central to the case. While the Plaintiff was found not entirely credible on all matters, the court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the claim was fundamentally dishonest. The court accepted that the Defendant was liable for the collision and that the Plaintiff sustained injury as a result.

The court relied on expert evidence, including clinical neurophysiology, orthopaedics, and pain medicine, to determine the nature and duration of injuries. It accepted that the Plaintiff suffered a soft tissue injury consistent with a hyperextension injury and myofascial pain syndrome, with symptoms persisting for approximately twelve months.

The court acknowledged evidence of ongoing symptoms beyond twelve months but found insufficient causal linkage to the accident, influenced by expert opinions that later symptoms were unlikely caused by the collision. The court also noted some undermining of the Defendant’s witnesses due to extraneous or unsubstantiated information provided to them.

Regarding damages, the court limited the award to solatium for pain and suffering during the twelve-month period following the accident and rejected claims for wage loss, services, or physiotherapy costs, finding these not established on the balance of probabilities.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to reparation from the Defendant for injury and loss resulting from the accident, but only in respect of the period of approximately twelve months following the collision.

The Plaintiff’s claim beyond that period was dismissed due to failure to establish causation.

The court awarded damages for solatium in the sum of £7,321.32 inclusive of interest to date.

The decision directly affects the parties by confirming liability and awarding damages limited to the initial injury period. No broader legal precedent was established.