Notes from hearing: RTA/ 15.01. 26

A recent small‑claims hearing offered an interesting look at how courts assess conflicting accounts in road‑traffic accidents, especially when there is no CCTV footage and both drivers insist they were not at fault. The case involved a collision at a junction, with each driver giving a very different version of events.

The Claimant’s Account

The claimant explained that the defendant’s vehicle was positioned at a give‑way line appearing to indicate a right turn. Believing there was sufficient room, the claimant moved alongside the car to pass on the left. According to this account, congestion made traffic slow‑moving, and the claimant said they felt confident the defendant was turning right.

The claimant stated they did not actually see the defendant’s vehicle move at the moment of impact. However, photographs showed minor damage consistent with contact. When questioned by the judge, the claimant maintained that the defendant must have unexpectedly changed direction, turning into the claimant’s vehicle.

The Defendant’s Account

The defendant described approaching the junction slowly, with a sleeping child in the car, and maintained that the road layout only allowed space for one vehicle. They insisted they were not turning right and had no reason to do so, as their intended destination required a left turn.

The defendant believed there should not have been any vehicle beside them because the lane was too narrow for two cars. They said they were simply moving forward when the collision occurred and had not anticipated a vehicle attempting to pass on the nearside.

During questioning, the defendant made several corrections to earlier details, and aspects of their account were inconsistent with their written evidence.

Submissions from Both Sides

For the defendant, the argument was that without CCTV, the court was left with two irreconcilable versions. Counsel highlighted the layout of the road, the position of the damage, and suggested that the claimant may have mounted the pavement to get past, causing the collision.

For the claimant, the submission focused on the defendant’s inconsistencies and the logic of the route. The claimant argued that the accident would not have occurred had the defendant maintained the position and direction originally indicated.

The Court’s Decision

The judge acknowledged that the case presented two fundamentally different accounts of how the collision happened. In assessing credibility and consistency, the judge ultimately preferred the claimant’s evidence.

The finding was that the defendant was in slow‑moving traffic behind another vehicle, and the claimant attempted to pass alongside. On the balance of probabilities, the defendant’s manoeuvre caused the contact. Liability was therefore placed on the defendant.

Outcome

Judgment was entered in favour of the claimant, with damages and associated sums ordered to be paid within the court‑specified timeframe. Although interest was requested, the judge declined to award it in this instance.