[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> De Maynard v Adu [2002] EWCA Civ 717 (9 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/717.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 717

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM BOW COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Hornby)

		The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Thursday 9 May 2002

Thursday 9 May 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application by the claimant in a road traffic accident claim for permission to appeal against the judgment of His Honour Judge Hornby at the Bow County Court in which he dismissed the claimant's claim.
2. The accident out of which the proceedings arose occurred on 29 August 1998 on the Seven Dials roundabout when Mr Maynard was travelling out of Shorts Gardens on to the Seven Dials and the defendant, Mr Adu, was coming down Monmouth Street on to Seven Dials. The account given by the claimant was that when he, the claimant, was on Seven Dials roundabout, having perfectly properly taken an appropriate space, the defendant drove his Volvo car into the driver's side of his car and caused significant damage. The defendant's account was that he came down Monmouth Street at an ordinary speed and went on to the Seven Dials roundabout because it was clear. There was a gap between him and the car ahead into which Mr Maynard tried to slip his car coming out from Shorts Gardens and there was, as a result, some contact between the two vehicles, but his account was that it was simply bumper to bumper. Both drivers stopped, got out, exchanged particulars and he saw no damage whatsoever to either vehicle.
3. The judge heard the evidence of Mr Maynard and of Mr Adu. He came to the clear conclusion that Mr Adu's evidence was to be preferred and it was on that basis that he gave judgment for the defendant.
4. Mr Maynard today submits that that conclusion of the judge was wrong. He has submitted a scale plan from the Ordnance Survey map of London in order, he says, to establish that his account is the more likely. He has also submitted other documents which he suggests in some way support his claim. He complains, in addition, that he was asked questions during his evidence about passengers in his car which, because of the fact that they were HIV positive, he felt he could not answer which may accordingly have given the judge the wrong impression, that he was trying in some way to mislead the court.
5. Having considered all the material, it seems to me that the application for permission to appeal is hopeless. The judge heard both Mr Maynard and Mr Adu. He came to clear conclusions of fact which are not affected in any way by any of the material that has been put before this court, and it is right to say that in his judgment the judge sets out a number of respects in which it is clear that the evidence of Mr Maynard was not credible evidence. It seems to me that there is no basis, therefore, upon which this court could conceivably interfere with the judge's conclusions of fact in this case.
6. Accordingly this is an application which must be refused.
ORDER: Application refused