Yaman v Parmar & Ors

____________________

Ms Teri Howell (Direct Access Counsel) for the Claimant Mr Aaron Pulford (instructed by Keoghs LLP) for the Second Defendant/ Part 20 Defendant Mr Zada in person Hearing dates: 23 and 24 October 2023 (All judgments in the 5 linked trials were sent for editorial correction after conclusion of the final linked trial on the 31st October) ____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________

Crown Copyright ©

HHJ BAUCHER:

The claim arises as a result of a road traffic accident on 3 rd August 2019 when Ms Yaman was a passenger in a BMW 3 series LR17 0BT driven by her husband Mr Zada. It is alleged a Tesco delivery vehicle BT15 VLA driven by Mr Parmar reversed out of a side road directly into their BMW as it was proceeding along Chinnor Crescent, Greenford. I shall call the parties by name for the sake of clarity.

Ms Yaman pursued a claim for personal injury by a Claim Notification and Tesco paid interim payments of £2960 in respect of personal injury and £13,000 in respect of vehicle damage. Ms Yaman subsequently issued these proceedings to recover the cost of the credit hire she incurred whilst her vehicle was repaired. Mr Zada also made a claim for personal injury by a Claim Notification and Tesco made an interim payment of £3270.

Tesco filed a defence and Counterclaim against Ms Yaman and raised Part 20 proceedings against Mr Parmar and Mr Zada alleging the accident was fraudulent and seeking damages for the torts of deceit and conspiracy. The Part 20 proceedings against Mr Parmar were stayed on 18 th October 2021 and Ms Yaman filed a notice of discontinuance on 26 th January 2022. The extant matters for my determination are Tesco's Counterclaim and the Part 20 proceedings against Mr Zada. Tesco also identified a further litigated 12 cases which are linked to this action and other non-litigated linked cases as per the table below:

Tesco called oral evidence from Mr Parmar, Mrs Hawkins, Mr Douglas and Mr Maberly. Mr Parmar was given a warning against self- incrimination, after he was sworn and before he confirmed his witness statement. Tesco also relied upon deposition evidence from Mr Suleman and written evidence from Mr Salazar and Mr Palenta. In relation to expert evidence Mr Etherington, forensic engineer, gave oral evidence for Tesco and Tesco relied upon written handwriting expert evidence from Ms Caramiello. Ms Yaman and Mr Zada gave oral evidence in defence of their claims.

Ms Howell appeared for Ms Yaman and Mr Pulford appeared for Tesco. Mr Zada appeared in person. Mr Parmar had the benefit of counsel in court whilst he gave his evidence. I am grateful to counsel for their assistance.

Tesco's case is that the accident on the 3 rd August 2019 was staged by Ms Yaman, Mr Zada and Mr Parmar, assisted by other unknown individuals, and that this accident was, but one, of a series of targeted staged accidents involving drivers employed at the Greenford depot to recover compensation from Tesco. Ms Yaman and Mr Zada contend this was a straightforward road traffic accident caused by the negligence of Mr Parmar.

Dramatis Personae

The following individuals featured in the claim:

The pleaded claims in tort and deceit

Given the nature of the claim it is necessary to set out the substance of the pleaded Counterclaim and Part 20 proceedings in some detail at paragraphs 15- 27 and paragraphs 72-83:

Tort of Deceit

Tort of Conspiracy.

81.On or before 03 August 2019, the Claimant, the First Part 20 Defendant and the First Defendant with each other and/or other persons whose names are presently unknown to the Second Defendant (or any two or more together), conspired and combined together wrongfully and with the sole or predominant intention of injuring the Second Defendant and/or of causing loss to the Second Defendant by facilitating damage to the Defendant's Vehicle and loss to the Second Defendant's business.

82.Pursuant to and in furtherance of the conspiracy pleaded in paragraph 81 above, the Claimants, the First Part 20 Defendant and the First Defendant with each other and/or other persons whose names are presently unknown to the Second Defendant (or any two or more together) did the following by which the Second Defendant was injured:

i) Drove into collision;

ii) Gave false accounts of the cause of the collision;

iii) Gave accounts of the collision which were intended to cause the Second Defendant to accept responsibility for the collision.

83.As a result of the Claimant, the First Part 20 Defendant and/or the First Defendant's conspiracy, as set out in paragraphs 81 and 82 above the Second Defendant has suffered loss and damage in that, the Second Defendant has incurred the cost of repairing its vehicle, the cost of responding to and investigating the claim by the Claimant and/or the First Part 20 Defendant, the cost of the sum already paid to the Claimant and/or the First Part 20 Defendant and the Second Defendant will continue to suffer loss and damage until the claim is concluded."

Ms Yaman and Mr Zada filed defences to their respective claims denying liability and maintaining they had been driving down the main road in Uxbridge when a Tesco vehicle reversed from a side road.

The law

The legal framework is agreed. Mr Pulford set out in his opening written submissions the relevant legal framework and I gratefully adopt his summary as per paragraphs 11- 35 below:

Deceit

For a claim to succeed in the tort of deceit Tesco must prove, on the balance of probabilities [1] that Ms Yaman and Mr Zada made a false statement of fact knowingly or recklessly, with the intention that it should be acted upon by Tesco, who suffered damage as a result.

A 'representation' must :1) be a statement (written or oral) or conduct amounting to a representation: 2) which is false.

A representation may be either express or implied from conduct [2] . Adopting the representation of a third party can be sufficient [3] . Where an issue arises as to whether a representation is true or not, the court normally looks to the reasonable meaning of what the defendant said [4] .

For the tort of deceit to be actionable it is not enough that Ms Yaman and Mr Zada were negligent as to whether the representation was false. They must have made the statement:

It makes no material difference if the representation was made to Tesco directly; so too with a statement made to someone known to be acting as agent for Tesco [7] . Equally, a representation made to a third party with intent that it be passed on to Tesco to be acted on by them will equally suffice [8] .

Reliance upon the representation: Tesco must prove that it relied on the representation and that Ms Yaman and Mr Zada intended Tesco to rely on it [9] .

Damage or loss must have been suffered because of the deceit. The representation does not need to have been the sole reason leading to the Tesco's loss, but it must have been one of the factors which together led to the loss. It is important to note there is clear authority that where a claimant proves that he has been deceived into expending money the burden shifts to the defendant - if he wishes to argue that the expenditure did not in fact amount to a loss to the claimant [10] .

Conspiracy

There are two forms of conspiracy: unlawful means conspiracy and lawful means conspiracy.

Unlawful Means

The economic tort of 'unlawful means' conspiracy occurs where two or more people act together unlawfully, intending to damage a third party (although that intention need not be the predominant purpose), and do, in fact, cause damage to the third party.

Summarised in Kuwait Oil Tanker v Al Bader [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 271 (at 108) the elements are:

Agreement, or combination: This was ruled to require a combination, arrangement or understanding between two or more people. It is not necessary for the conspirators all to join the conspiracy at the same time, but the parties to it must be sufficiently aware of the surrounding circumstances and share the same object for it properly to be said that they were acting in concert at the time of the acts complained of: Kuwait Oil Tanker at 111.

Intention to injure: in OBG v Allan [2007] UKHL 21 , the House of Lords considered the level of intentionality required to establish liability, and highlighted the distinction between ends, means, and consequences. In summary:

i. 'Ends', where harm to the claimant is the end sought by the defendant, then the requisite intention is made out.

ii. 'Means', where the harm to the claimant is the means by which the defendant seeks to secure his/her end, then the requisite intention is made out and

iii. 'Consequences', where the harm is neither the end nor the means but merely a foreseeable consequence, the requisite intention is not made out.

The court went on to note that there was another category, known as "the other side of the coin", to consider if harm to the claimant was the necessary consequence of the defendant's actions. This was differentiated from category (iii) on the basis that the defendant's gain and the claimant's loss are inseparably linked, and the defendant cannot obtain the one without bringing about the other, and the defendant knew this to be the case. In such circumstances, then although the purpose of the defendant's action was not to harm the claimant, they will be considered as having intended to harm the claimant. The court also noted that there was no additional requirement that the precise identity of the victim be required at law to establish the requisite intention.

Unlawful acts: in ED & F Man Capital Markets Limited v Come Harvest Holdings Limited & ors [2022] EWHC 229 (Comm) at paragraph 468 the court has set out that the unlawful act element is made up of two parts 'the unlawfulness of the act; and whether the unlawful act is in fact the "means" by which injury is inflicted'.

The House of Lords in Total Network SL v HM Revenue & Customs [2008] UKHL 19 made clear that the unlawful means used need not be actionable in and of themselves (albeit actionable wrongs are not excluded from the unlawful means required to prove the tort).

In Maranello Rosso Limited v Lohomij BV, Bonhams 1793 Limited, Bonhams & Butterfields, Auctioneers Corporation, Evert Louwman, Robert Brooks, James Knight, Anthony Maclean [2021] EWHC 2452 (Ch) it was held that 'a breach of fiduciary duty' was sufficient unlawful means to meet the requirement for a conspiracy.

The High Court in: London Allied Holding v Lee [2007] EWHC 2061 (Ch) held that fraudulent misrepresentations by one party to another was sufficient to constitute unlawful means to prove the tort on conspiracy [paragraph 252].

In Ivy Technology Ltd v Martin [2022] EWHC 1218 (Comm) it was held by the High Court that the vendors of an online gambling business were guilty of deceit and unlawful means conspiracy by knowingly making false representations to the purchaser that the business was profitable in order to persuade the purchaser to enter into the transaction.

It has been held that where the claimant can prove acts unlawful in themselves, done in pursuance of the conspiracy, that is the other form of the tort, unlawful means conspiracy, the burden of justifying such acts passes to the defendant [11] .

Loss to the claimant. Finally, the claimant must prove that by reason of the conspiracy it has suffered a loss.

Lawful means

A second type of conspiracy exists in tort: Lawful means conspiracy.

The test for lawful means conspiracy is a combination to perform acts (which are, not in themselves unlawful), but are done with the sole or predominant purpose of injuring the claimant, which cause loss: it is in the fact of the conspiracy that the unlawfulness resides. [12]

The elements of this tort are the same as for unlawful means conspiracy with the exception of the intention to injure requirement.

An intention to injure:

For lawful means conspiracy, it is necessary to prove that the conspirators had the sole or predominant intention of injuring the claimant [13] . As it was put in Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942]: 'If that predominant purpose is to damage another person and damage results, that is tortious conspiracy'.

The mental element of intention to injure the claimant will be satisfied where the defendant intends to injure the claimant either as an end in itself or as a means to an end such as to enrich themselves or protect or promote their own economic interests. It will not be satisfied where injury to the claimant is neither a desired end nor a means of attaining it but merely a foreseeable consequence of the defendants' actions.

It is with those legal considerations in mind, and conscious that the burden of proof lies with Tesco to the usual civil standard, that I now turn to the case.

The evidence of Tesco home delivery drivers

Tesco relied on evidence from three former drivers based at the Greenford depot. None attended court to give oral evidence.

Mr Salazar's statement was served with a Civil Evidence Notice as he has left the country. He said that on the 8 th August 2019 he was approached by a driver in a blue Mercedes van and asked "do you want to make £500 pounds quick?" He replied, "not really" and was then asked if he would go to the corner and drive into the van for £500. He declined but he said he was so concerned the other driver might cause an accident that he kept his distance and noted the registration number and provided those details to his manager.

Mr Palenta did not make a statement in these proceedings but made a MG 11 statement. In that statement he described how he was approached in February 2020 by Kaz a former picker from Tesco. Mr Palenta was completing his delivery round when he was approached and asked if he wanted to make some "easy money." He enquired how this could be done. He was told "just get some money from the insurance. You hit our car and we get money from the insurance. We can share it." He said Kaz mentioned £1,000. Mr Palenta advised Kaz said "If you don't want to do it maybe some of the other drivers want to do it, maybe someone about to leave the company as they don't care." Kaz asked for a piece of paper and wrote down his number. Mr Palenta subsequently informed his manager and provided him with the piece of paper. Mr Palenta returned to Poland after making the statement.

Mr Suleman gave evidence by deposition pursuant to my order dated 10 th December 2021. No party in any of the proceedings applied to be present at the deposition. Mr Suleman said on the 5 th December 2020 he was parked in Greenford when he was approached by a man on a motorcycle and asked if he would like to earn "money, big money." He was offered £2,000 cash. He said he declined and told the man other drivers had been involved in such crashes and had been caught. He said the motor cyclist still tried to give him his telephone number, but he did not take it. Mr Suleman said he noted the registration number of the bike and gave it to his employers. His evidence was further tested during his deposition testimony which I have also reviewed.

I have carefully weighed this evidence particularly because there has been no opportunity to test the evidence of Mr Salazar and Mr Palenta. However, I am satisfied that given the internal consistency of the evidence and the lack of any exterior motive I should give it considerable weight.

The finance agreement for the BMW

The BMW was subject to a finance agreement with Black Horse Limited. The vehicle was purchased for £21,005. Ms Yaman paid a deposit of £8000. The interest was 7.56%. The Agreement commenced on the 24 th April 2018 and was for 36 months. The report from Experian Autocheck showed multiple searches for the redemption figure including a search on the 30th July 2019. Ms Yaman said that was because she and her husband were looking to see if they could purchase a BMW X5 series as they "loved them so much." She said the search 3 days before the crash was a "coincidence." The finance agreement was settled in full on the 2 nd March 2021.

Prior accidents

Ms Yaman agreed she had three road traffic accidents in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Mr Zada agreed he had 3 accidents in 2015,2016 and 2017. He was asked about an incident with a bus in 2016 and the entry:

"Whilst we did admit liability, we raised serious causation in regard to the injuries as not all the damage reported on the engineers report was caused by our bus and was pre-existing. Our bus only connected with the wing mirror of the vehicle the claimant was traveling. No further response from TP sols after we raised causation. Credit hire was also rejected based on the same points as the vehicle was roadworthy with the damage we caused."

Mr Zada said he could not remember the details of the incident so said he could not be sure the entry was correct.

The accident on the 3rd August 2019

Ms Yaman said in her witness statement:

"3. On August 3 rd 2019 at 9.30-9.45, my husband and I were on our way back from seeing a friend. We chose this day as on the same day around 10.30pm my husband and I were going to meet someone (potential employee) at a restaurant she had chosen……

5.My husband and I were driving down a main high road when a Tesco vehicle reversing out of a left side street crashed into my passenger side of the vehicle. (The route he was backing out of was a no through route). After the accident once we wrapped our head around what happened I cancelled my meeting with the young lady as all I wanted to do was get to a hospital. I was 7 months pregnant at the time of the accident and was trying to arrange employment for my Minicab office that was due to open in November 2019.

In cross examination Ms Yaman refused to identify the friend they had been to visit. She did identify the potential employee as "Camellia." She said she had not been called as a witness as her "phone was dead." Ms Yaman could not identify the restaurant they intended to visit.

Ms Yaman said at the time of the accident it was dark and the headlights of the BMW were displayed. She said there were cars parked on the side of the road so the BMW was centrally positioned on approach to Bledlow Rise. She said she did not see the Tesco van until it was evident it was going to hit the BMW. Ms Yaman thought they were proceeding at 20-25mph when the crash happened. However, she later said she could be mistaken given her husband had said in his incident report form he was driving at 5-10mph. Ms Yaman said the Tesco van hit the BMW in the middle of the car. She said she screamed and panicked as her husband "hit the brakes." She said the BMW stopped in a matter of seconds.

Ms Yaman said she did not get out of the vehicle, but she saw her husband take photographs of their car. She was clear she had witnessed him do so and that he had only taken photographs of the side of the BMW. She was asked in some detail about the photographs and whether they were consistent with her evidence. She was adamant they were taken at the scene. She said that she had also seen Mr Parmar give her husband a piece of paper.

Ms Yaman said the only damage on the vehicle prior to the accident was a scratch. She said that she did have GAP insurance but could not remember the exact payment she received. She said she thought she had paid £13-18,000 to repair the BMW.

Mr Zada said in his witness statement:

"2. On the 3 rd of August 2019 around 9:45pm in the evening I was driving with my wife from her friend's house to meet a potential employee for my wife's new minicab business that was due to commence trading in November 2019.

3.While my wife and I were driving down the main road in Uxbridge (UB6) a Tesco delivery vehicle reversed back from a side road with no exit signs and hit my car from the passenger's side. I pulled over and got out of my vehicle to take photos of the accident damages to my vehicle and the Tesco vehicle.

In his oral evidence Mr Zada said there were cars parked on both sides of the road so the BMW was central on approach to the junction. He initially said the Tesco van was stationary when he first saw it but later retracted that account. He said he had not seen the Tesco van before it reversed into the side of the BMW. He said that any confusion as to whether the Tesco van came from a no entry, or no exit road was caused by English not being his first language. He said Mr Parmar had given him the bump card and that whilst those details were being completed, he took photographs. The principal photograph is shown below:

Mr Zada was asked about the white line present on the photograph and he said that photograph had been taken at Middlesex Hospital when he attended with his wife to check on her welfare and their unborn child.

Tesco relied on the evidence of Mr Parmar in support of its contention this was a stage-managed accident. Mr Parmar's evidence changed from his initial account, and I shall return to this in due course.

The first account of the incident was given by Mr Parmar in the Tesco Investigation Form which he completed on 3 rd August 2019. In that report he gave an account and produced a diagram as set out below:

In Mr Parmar's witness statement dated 28 th September 2021 he set out his involvement in this road traffic accident and 5 other accidents. He said:

In relation to the index accident, he said:

In his oral evidence Mr Parmar said he had been involved in 8 accidents whilst employed by Tesco but only three had been genuine. Mr Parmar said he changed his account as he realised, he "had been stupid and I then had to tell the truth." He denied he was under the influence of drugs when this accident occurred. He said that Nik and Dee had met him. He said he had not seen their car. He said they had told him the Blue BMW would be coming and he was to "reverse back." He said he was sure it was the right vehicle as the vehicle registration was on the bump card which Nik and Dee had completed and he had been paid £200 for the accident. He said he had seen a man and a woman in the car when he had left his van for a cigarette.

The Bump card and handwriting evidence

Mr Parmar said he did not complete the Bump card. He said that had been completed by Nik and Dee. The relevant section is copied below:

The "Bump card" collision report was examined by Ms Karen Caramiello, Forensic Scientist, in the field of handwriting and document examination. She provided her expert opinion on the handwriting contained within the Collision Report Form in her report dated 13 th September 2021. Ms Caramiello examined Mr Parmar's handwriting and the bump card, as well as the handwriting on the bump cards from cases 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 25 and 28.

Ms Caramiello's opinion in as set out in her statement endorsed with a Part 35 statement of truth. She concluded at paragraph 17 in respect of the writing on those bump cards that there was "strong evidence to support the proposition that those entries … were made by one person….. and limited evidence that …. Manish Parmar made this writing."

Hano Autos

In the Replies to Request for Further Particulars dated 9 th May 2020 Ms Yaman said Hano Autos had been recommended by "a friend" and in relation to the incident she also phoned a friend who recommended Hano Autos. She said the BMW had been taken to 2 Creek Road.

In her witness statement Ms Yaman said Hano Autos were first recommended to her by a friend. In her oral evidence she said she used to operate a removal firm and she had used Hano Autos for repairs and maintenance. Ms Yaman said she had never been to the garage but had left the arrangements to her husband. She agreed she had a business relationship with Hano Autos over several years from 2014 -2019. She said this was because their prices were very reasonable.

Damage to the vehicle

Mr Kemp of Blake assessors prepared a report listing the repair schedule, cost of repairs and providing a sketch of the impact damage:

Mr Kemp also provided 20 photographs which were subsequently examined by Mr Etherington.

Mr Etherington in his report dated 6 th June 2022 identified seven areas of damage to Ms Yaman's vehicle:1. The horizontal dent to the nearside roof rail. 2. The forward section of the nearside rear door. 3. The rear section of the nearside front door. 4. The rear bumper. 5. The light horizontal scratches on the nearside rear quarter panel leading into the nearside rear lamp. 6. Horizontal impact profile to the rear wheel arch. 7. The rear edge of the nearside rear door.

Mr Etherington considered the compatibility of damage and concluded:

In his oral evidence Mr Etherington said he had not conducted a physical examination of either vehicle. He said he had only been able to identify one area of damage which could be consistent with the BMW coming into contact with the Tesco van. He said that following his report he had reviewed the photographs produced by Mr Zada and Ms Yaman and his opinion remained unchanged.

Similar fact evidence

Graham Douglas provided two witness statements setting out details of the linked cases and the links relating to this claim. Those links were summarised by Mr Pulford and are attached as Appendix 1 to this judgment. Tesco also helpfully reproduced the links in pictorial format, and these are annexed at Appendix 2.

In his oral evidence Mr Douglas accepted that the only direct connection to Ms Yaman and Mr Zada was by reason of Mr Parmar and the use of Hano Autos. In his closing submissions Mr Pulford confirmed Tesco principally relied upon the links in respect of Mr Parmar and the other accidents, which Mr Parmar said were staged and the links flowing from Hano Autos.

Submissions

Ms Howell's primary submission was Mr Parmar's credibility. Ms Howell placed emphasis on Mr Parmar's admitted drug habit and the complete volte face in relation to his evidence in respect of this accident. She said Mr Parmar's evidence was riddled with discrepancies and alterations such as the positioning of Nik and Dee, where their Mercedes was located, whether he had seen the Blue BMW and whether Mr Parmar had exited his vehicle. Ms Howell contended that the photograph produced by Ms Yaman proved Mr Parmar was mistaken when he said he had remained in his vehicle throughout. Ms Howell submitted his evidence was so unreliable it should be rejected. Ms Howell also maintained the expert evidence in respect of the bump card was not conclusive.

Ms Howell submitted Mr Parmar has simply crashed into the wrong vehicle and that Ms Yaman and Mr Zada were innocent parties who were not involved in any conspiracy.

Mr Pulford said this was not an isolated accident with its own individual factual components but one of a series of similar cases. He said this was a prestige vehicle, which had an accident at night, on a residential street, sustaining damage to its side caused by a reversing Tesco van. Mr Pulford said that those same facts had occurred in four other cases; 4,5,6 and 16. Further Mr Pulford said that in 21 crashes with Tesco drivers the driver had been reversing and in 10 crashes the vehicle had been allegedly taken to Hano Autos at 2 Creek Road, when just as in this case ,the vehicle was taken to Belvue Road at a business address linked to Mr Noel Khuashaba. Mr Pulford also said that in another 12 crashes the Tesco van had been proceeding from the minor road onto the main road.

Mr Pulford said that Ms Yaman's and Mr Zada's motive was to secure compensation. Mr Pulford contended that Ms Yaman and Mr Zada had the means to manufacture a crash given their long relationship with Hano Autos.

In relation to the accident Mr Pulford submitted the evidence from Ms Yaman and Mr Zadar was not credible. He said they had tried to obscure the location by reference to a main road and had been muddled in their reference to Hayes and Uxbridge. He said they both maintained the BMW was moving when the expert evidence established the vehicle damage could not have been sustained in such circumstances.

Mr Pulford submitted the evidence at the scene; the bump card and the photographs further undermined the evidence of Ms Yaman and Mr Zada. Mr Pulford said that the name of the driver was crossed out 3 times and Mr Parmar's name spelt incorrectly which was consistent with Mr Parmar's evidence he did not write it. Mr Pulford asserted the photographs allegedly taken at the scene showed the vehicle in a parking bay which was inconsistent with the road layout.

Mr Pulford said that whilst Mr Parmar may have taken drugs and lied on prior occasions his evidence was credible as it aligned with other evidence, and it should be accepted as a true account of what had occurred.

Preliminary matters

In considering the account of the accident I was invited by Mr. Pulford to draw an adverse inference from the failure to call certain witnesses on the part of Ms Yaman and Mr Zada. Mr Pulford referred to the case of Wiszniewski (a Minor) v Central Manchester Health Authority (1998) EWCA Civ 596 where Roche LJ held:

"In certain circumstances a court may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the absence or silence of a witness who might be expected to have material evidence to give on an issue in an action. If the court is willing to draw such inferences they may go to strengthen the evidence adduced on that issue by the other party or to weaken the evidence, if any, adduced by the party who might reasonably have been expected to call a witness. There must, however, have been some evidence, however weak, adduced by the former on the matter in question before the court is entitled to draw the desired inference. In other words, there must be a case to answer on that issue. If the reason for the witness's absence or silence satisfies the court then no such adverse inference may be drawn. If, on the other hand, there is some credible explanation given, even if not wholly satisfactory, the potentially detrimental effect of his or her absence of silence may be reduced or nullified."

Ms Yaman and Mr Zada did not call any evidence from the friends they had been with that evening nor from the individual they were intending to interview. Ms Yaman said she had tried to contact Camellia but to no avail. Ms Yaman refused to identify her friends. Ms Yaman also refused to identify from whom she had received the recommendation in respect of Hano Autos. In my view the evidence on this aspect was unsatisfactory and the approach from Ms Yaman positively obstructive. However, on the central issue of the accident itself I find the absence of these witnesses of little assistance when reaching my determination.

During the course of his evidence Mr Zada stated on more than one occasion that if there was any confusion in respect of his answers this was because English is not his first language. Whilst English may not be Mr Zada's first language Tesco offered to pay for, and arrange, an interpreter to assist Mr Zada on 17 th October 2023 to prevent any such difficulty and he declined. I am satisfied Mr Zada was therefore given every opportunity to tender before this court his best evidence. I also do not consider that any of the perceived difficulties were caused by any language barriers; to the contrary I consider it was used by Mr Zada as a convenient shield.

Findings

The start and end point of this case rests with two pieces of objective evidence both produced by Ms Yaman and Mr Zada; the bump card and their photographs.

The bump card was given to Mr Zada at the scene. Ms Yaman accepted the driver's name was crossed out on the card and that Mr Parmar was incorrectly written as "Mr Parmer." I consider she then tried to obfuscate whether it had been Mr Parmar by saying she "thought he had hair." In my view that was the only piece of true evidence from Ms Yaman. I find it inconceivable Mr Parmar would not know his own name or that he would spell his own name incorrectly. The person who handed over the card may well have had a full head of hair because I find it was not Mr Parmar, but either Nik or Dee, who wrote that card. I find there was confusion as to the name and how to spell it because someone other than Mr Parmar wrote it. My view is fortified by the evidence of the handwriting expert, Ms Caramiello. She concluded there was strong evidence that a whole series of bump cards involving Mr Parmar and other drivers were completed by one person.

The second piece of objective evidence is the photographs that Mr Zada took at the scene. There were four in total, but I have reproduced the crucial photograph at paragraph 51 of this judgment. Ms Yaman and Mr Zada were clear in their witness statements the photographs had been taken at the scene. Ms Yaman agreed she had never left the vehicle, but she was certain in her oral evidence Mr Zada had taken photographs of the vehicle at the scene. Even when Ms Yaman was shown the accident location on the screen in court, and the discrepancies in the road markings were drawn to her attention and the reflected cars, she remained adamant they were taken at the scene.

Initially Mr Zada maintained the same account. He said he had taken the photographs whilst Mr Parmar was obtaining the bump card. He said "it was taken where the accident happened. I was the one who took the photograph." He was then asked directly about the photograph shown in paragraph 51 of this judgment and the presence of the white line and cars. He then said the photograph was taken at the hospital and that perhaps Ms Yaman had not disclosed all the photographs.

I consider that not only was the immediate change in Mr Zada's evidence significant, but I find its timing was also significant. Mr Zada was present in court when his wife was cross-examined. He knew the photograph allegedly taken at the scene was inconsistent with the road markings. I find he too tried to obfuscate the true position initially by standing by his evidence. I then find that having had the overnight adjournment to consider matters he then alighted on the explanation the photograph was taken in a hospital bay.

I am satisfied those photographs were produced in an attempt to maximise the amount of compensation Tesco were obliged to pay in this case. There are no single white lines on Chinnor Crescent. I find the photographs were not taken at the roadside, as is apparent from the single white line and the reflected cars. I consider at some point, before or after this crash, the photographs were taken after some person, known to Ms Yaman and Mr Zada had taken a hammer, or some such like tool, to the rear door back panel. The photographs were taken in a loading bay, probably in a garage, and it is only due to the forensic work of Tesco's lawyers, the truth has prevailed. The photographs were not taken at the scene and Ms Yaman and Mr Zada lied when they asserted, they had in their witness statements, and when they gave oral evidence.

My clear findings are strengthened by other aspects of the evidence. First, there was the evidence of Mr Etherington. He prepared a comprehensive report dated 6 th June 2022 comprising 53 pages. I have considered it, and the accompanying photographs, with care. I have also had regard to Mr Etherington's considerable experience which is set out at Appendix 1 of his report. In my view his independence is confirmed by his split of instructions for 2021/22 of 56% claimant, 43% defendant and 3% single joint.

I also had the benefit of Mr Etherington's evidence in the witness box. Mr Etherington said that his findings were not affected by the absence of a direct examination or any marginal differences with the BMW. I found him an impressive witness. When he was asked about the damage shown in the photograph in paragraph 51 of this judgment and the photographs, he examined in his report, he was clear and unequivocal that the same damage was exhibited in the photographs contained in his report. In his report in relation to this damage he said there were no horizontal lead in or lead out contact marks in the separate area of damage and the damage was consistent with the BMW being stationary. I sought clarification in respect of his conclusions at paragraphs 3.1.6 and 3.1.7. and in particular photograph 16 in respect of that damage as appears below:

Mr Etherington told me the damage caused in that photograph was caused with a heavy instrument such as a hammer. In short it could not possibly have been sustained in this accident as the vehicle was stationary and the damage inflicted by manual application. Inconsistent damage is a feature of other linked cases namely cases 1, 2,3,4,6,9,11,13 and 16.

Based on Mr Etherington's evidence there was also damage to the roof of this vehicle. I accept that neither Mr Zada nor Ms Yaman produced a roadside photograph of roof damage. Thus, in ordinary circumstances that could be a finding which had no material bearing on the accident and perhaps, as Ms Howell sought to contend, it was sustained at the garage. However, I find it is material because damage to the outer roof rail is also reported in linked cases 1, 2, 6, 9, 13 and 16.

I found Mr Etherington's report and his oral evidence extremely persuasive cogent compelling evidence. I have no hesitation in accepting the entirety of his evidence which is entirely supportive of my findings on the objective evidence.

In the light of my findings, I can deal with other aspects of the evidence relatively briefly. I have considered Mr Parmar's evidence very carefully as he admits perverting the course of justice and other criminal offences. I am also aware the Part 20 proceedings against him have been stayed. Whilst there were discrepancies in Mr Parmar's evidence on the central aspects, I am satisfied he was telling me the truth when he gave his oral evidence. He may have lied in the past, committed offences and taken drugs but I do not consider that diminishes what can only be described as his "confession evidence." I am satisfied that evening he was phoned by Nik and Dee and he met them as arranged. I am satisfied Nik and Dee identified Ms Yaman's BMW and asked him to reverse into it. I am satisfied when Mr Parmar did so the BMW, was not moving, but was stationary. I am satisfied Mr Parmar did not complete the bump card. I am satisfied he saw a man and a woman in the Blue BMW. I am satisfied Mr Parmar was paid to crash into the Blue BMW and it was not a mistake. I find it was a deliberate act and that Mr Parmar had hit the correct vehicle is proved by his evidence he received £200 for doing so. His evidence is also consistent with the evidence of Mr Suleman, Mr Salazar, Mr Palenta that Tesco Greenford depot drivers were deliberately targeted by persons unknown to be involved in stage- managed crashes.

I find Ms Yaman and Mr Zada from the outset constructed a fairy tale and their reluctance to identify the friends they had visited, or the person they were supposedly going to interview at 10 pm, are a figment of their imagination. I find they invented those individuals because they were desperately trying to explain why they were randomly driving along Chinnor Crescent. Thus, their explanation during oral evidence that their presence on that random side crescent was the fault of the satellite navigation. Their account was littered with minor evidential difficulties such as the reference to a "main road" and "Hayes or Uxbridge" and whether Mr Parmar reversed out of a "no exit" or "no entry" road. The errors betrayed the reality. The truth was they had no purpose to be in that crescent save, to conspire and work with others, to defraud Tesco. Like other linked matters they chose a quiet residential road, late in the evening. If that were not enough on their own evidence, they were in conflict as to their speed whether it was 5-10mph or over 20mph. However even on their own evidence they should have had a clear view of the Tesco van on approach to the junction, but both denied it. In my view Mr Zada tripped over his own lies in the witness box when he initially said that the Tesco van was "stationary on the other side and you could not see it." He was then asked by Mr Pulford how he had known the vehicle was stationary if he had not seen it. I find Mr Zada realised his error so on three occasions he failed to answer the question and then said that he had not seen the vehicle. Mr Zada then tried to explain away his evidence by blaming his "lack of English." I reject that assertion. I find his error accords with the evidence of Mr Parmar. Mr Parmar was parked up waiting for them to arrive.

The vehicle was not taken to Hano Autos at 2 Creek Road. The photographs from Blake Assessors show that the vehicle was examined at Belvue Road. This is a garage operated by Noel Khuashaba. The false report of the location of the storage and inspection of the vehicle occurs in cases 1, 2,4,5,6,13,16,19 and 29. I find that the reason a false location was given was in the hope this would obscure the connections between 7 Belvue Road with Niaz/ Awara Saleh/ Awara Mario and the links and connections with cases 11, 6, 16 and 30 as is clear from the Similar Fact Evidence. I believe Ms Yaman also sought to avoid association with those links by her bizarre evidence that when she had said in the Replies to Request the recommendation to use them that evening came from a "family member" she did not mean family but just a friend of her husband, whom he treated as family. I find in all likelihood the missing name was one of those now identified in the Similar Fact Evidence.

Ms Yaman and Mr Zada have a long relationship with Hano Autos and yet they produced no documentation from them in relation to the storage of the vehicle and its subsequent repair. I accept the burden is not on them to prove the case, but had they incurred genuine storage charges and repair costs in my view it would have been a simple matter to secure such evidence. I do not consider their absence can properly be explained by any alleged change of ownership. I find the absence of that documentation lends further support to my findings.

I find Ms Yaman and Mr Zada wanted to change their car and saw a manufactured crash as a means to do so. I find the fact one of them sought to ascertain the cost of paying off that agreement three days before the incident no mere "coincidence" as Ms Yaman would have me believe. They have everything to gain from a crash as they had GAP insurance. The finance agreement was for £21980.52. Ms Yaman received £13,600 for the vehicle and therefore she would have received £8,380.52 from her GAP insurers thus a total of £24,5800.52. In addition, she received £2600 for her personal injury and Mr Zada £2910. They also both had the use of a Mercedes Benz for some 27 days. All these were material advantages such that I find Ms Yaman and Mr Zada deliberately allowed Mr Parmar to crash into their vehicle. I find it was not moving at the time as there is no evidence to support that assertion. Indeed, the expert evidence supports the vehicle being stationary. I find that is why they were prepared to sit in it as there was no risk to their unborn child, whose imminent birth, they have tried to use as a cloak to hide the truth. This accident was entirely stage- managed.

Finally, on any account both Ms Yaman and Mr Zada have been unfortunate in respect of the number of accidents they have suffered prior to this matter. In some respects that is unremarkable as they could just have been unfortunate. However, one accident in my view is further evidential support for Tesco's contention this was a stage-managed crash. In 2016 Mr Zada made a claim for personal injury and credit hire charges when the wing mirror of a bus hit his vehicle. When the insurers challenged his account on causation, he did not pursue his claim. In short Mr Zada is not shy from advancing a dishonest claim.

Conclusion on liability

I find that based on the evidence of Mr Suleman, Mr Salazar and Mr Palenta Tesco drivers were being targeted to have staged crashes for cash payments I am satisfied Ms Yaman, Mr Zada and Mr Parmar, with others unknown, worked together to create what on the surface looked like an accident. They chose a quiet crescent late at night when they hoped there would be little traffic and no pedestrians to witness their activity. On the evidence of Mr Etherington, the vehicle did not sustain any damage, which could have been sustained in the crash if the vehicle was moving. There is also extensive claimed damage which I find has been caused by a heavy blunt instrument when the vehicle was stationary. I find the entirety of the claim to be a total sham. I find Ms Yaman, Mr Zada and Mr Parmar contrived together with others for the sole purpose of unlawfully extracting compensation from Tesco.

I have made clear findings of fact in respect of the accident circumstances and found that it was stage-managed.

On my findings Ms Yaman made false statements of fact knowingly when:

I find Ms Yaman made false statements to Tesco regarding the facts and cause of the accident. Ms Yaman asserted losses in respect of personal injury and damage to her vehicle and in so doing has made fraudulent misrepresentations to Tesco.

Mr Zada made false statements of fact knowingly when:

On my findings Mr Zada made false statements to Tesco regarding the facts and cause of the accident. Mr Zada asserted losses in respect of personal injury and damage to the vehicle and in so doing has made fraudulent misrepresentations to Tesco.

The statements of fact are untrue because the accident was not caused by negligence but was a contrived crash caused by Ms Yaman and Mr Zada's intentional acts in conjunction with Mr Parmar and persons unknown. They both knew that by orchestrating the collision the statement of facts made were untrue. I am satisfied they both intended Tesco to act upon those statements of fact; by the submission of court documents through the online Portal and then proceedings with a Statement of Truth.

I am satisfied Tesco have suffered damage. They paid sums on account to both Ms Yaman and Mr Zada. Further, I have considered the evidence of Mr Maberly. I am not persuaded that just because Tesco employ persons in any event to investigate fraud that should reduce the damages. I am satisfied Tesco are entitled to recover the sum of £1023.85 from Ms Yaman and £1023.85 from Mr Zada for the work incurred by Tesco investigating their fraud. On the evidence of Mrs Hawkins Tesco also updated their vehicles with all round cameras as a result of this investigation, which is further, albeit unspecified, loss.

In terms of the tort of Conspiracy on my findings Ms Yaman, Mr Zada and Mr Parmar have worked with others unknown to cause a collision intentionally. This meets the test for a combination, agreement or understanding. They did so, for the reasons I have already given, with the deliberate intention of injuring Tesco.

I am satisfied Ms Yaman and Mr Zada did so unlawfully by pursuing dishonest claims as per Howlett v Davies [2017] EWCA Civ 1696 . In my view nothing can be more fundamental to a claim than its manufacture.

I am also satisfied Ms Yaman and Mr Zada used unlawful means when they caused damage to Tesco's property: Criminal damage- under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971which provides:

Ms Yaman and Mr Zada also used unlawful means when they made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the cause and facts of the accident, contrary to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006- which prohibits:

"(1) A person to

I am also satisfied as a consequence of those unlawful acts, for the reasons already given, Tesco suffered loss.

It follows in the light of my findings that Tesco succeeds in its claims for the tort of deceit and unlawful means Conspiracy.

Damages

Tesco are entitled to recover the sums they have paid on account namely £13,600 for the vehicle damage and the sums paid on account of personal injury together with associated legal costs; £3416 paid to Ms Yaman and £3726 paid to Mr Zada. They are also entitled to recover the sums for the loss directly incurred by Tesco in respect of the investigation which is £1023.85 each for which they are jointly and severally liable.

Tesco also seeks an award of exemplary damages. Mr Pulford relying on Axa Insurance Plc v 1) Financial Claims Solutions 2) Mohammed Aurangzaib 3) Hakim Mohammed Abdul [2018] EWCA Civ 1330 asked me to make an award of £15,000 for exemplary damages against each party. Ms Howell submitted the award should be no more than £1,000.

Exemplary damages are an exception to normal tortious principles. Their award and a distillation of the principles and the law in cases such as this case is set out at paragraphs 25 – 35 of that judgment which I gratefully adopt. At paragraph 35 LJ Flaux said:

"As I have said, this case is a paradigm one for the award of exemplary damages. As to the amount of such damages, as was stated by Arden LJ in Ramzan v Brookwide at [82], the sum must be principled and proportionate. As in that case, given the need to deter and punish the outrageous conduct and abusive behaviour in the present context, the principled basis is to make a punitive award. The respondents have chosen not to place before the court any evidence as to their means so that it is not appropriate to limit the amount of any award by reference to ability or inability to pay …. Given the seriousness of the conduct of the respondents and the need to deter them and others from engaging in this form of "cash for crash" fraud, which has become far too prevalent and which adversely affects all those in society who are policyholders who face increased insurance premiums, I consider that the appropriate award of exemplary damages is that each of the first, second and third respondents should be liable to pay £20,000."

In that case one of the Respondents acted as if it were a firm of solicitors authorised to conduct litigation, which it was not, thereby committing a criminal offence under s14 of the Legal Services Act 2007. The Court of Appeal described the fraud itself as "sophisticated, well-planned and brazen" which "involved serious abuse of the process of the court." It involved fictious credit hire documents and medical reports in relation to five claims in respect of two separate accidents with two Axa insured drivers. Axa refused indemnity in each case. There are therefore some similarities but also differences with the instant case. The Court of Appeal was primarily concerned with the principle of making such an award but made an award of exemplary damages of £20,000 in respect of each of the three Respondents. Whilst Mr Pulford said the case is a "useful high watermark" I do not consider the decision should be taken as setting any particular benchmark. In every case it is for the judge to assess the extent of the outrageous conduct. However, any decision as to the amount of damages must be principled and proportionate as per Arden LJ in Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 985 at paragraph 82.

In stage managing this crash Ms Yaman and Mr Zada and others persuaded a Tesco employee, Mr Parmar, to join them in this conspiracy. They arranged for him to be paid for that "service." Mr Parmar's consequent action was a gross breach of trust which struck at the heart of Tesco's business when their very business depends on its interface with their customers. On the evidence of Mrs Hawkins Tesco also updated their vehicles with all round cameras partly as a result of this investigation, which is a further, albeit unspecified, loss and an aggravating factor. Ms Yaman and Mr Zada either themselves or allowed another to take a heavy instrument to their own vehicle and damage it and then they repeatedly lied on oath as to the photographs they asserted were taken at the scene thereby contending that damage was sustained in the crash. They thereby wilfully claimed for damages which were never sustained in any road traffic accident never mind this stage- managed one. Ms Yaman and Mr Zada attested to facts on court documents which were manifestly untrue. That is a direct attack on the integrity of the justice system. Ms Yaman and Mr Zada also received substantial sums on account from Tesco and have thereby to date enjoyed the fruits of their sustained, calculated fraud. Ms Yaman also succeeded in fraudulently recovering a significant sum from her GAP insurers. Ms Yaman and Mr Zada also tried to avoid these proceedings by using their unborn child to deny that they could have stage- managed a crash. Mr Pulford described that as "mendacious wickedness and low wicked cunning." I concur with that description.

However, what distinguishes this case and the other linked actions from other matters which have proceeded to the courts for exemplary damages award is the wholesale nature of the fraud and the extent of the conspiracy which is set out in the Similar Fact Evidence and fully illustrated in the attached diagram at Appendix 2. This is not a case of two accidents and five passengers as in Axa. This is a fraud and conspiracy of unprecedented scale which has engaged this court in five weeks of continuous Tesco litigation involving the consideration and reference to 31 related matters embodied in 60,000 documents. The sheer scale of the fraud must be reflected in the amount of exemplary damages awarded.

Ms Yaman and Mr Zada have not furnished this court with any information as to their income. Tesco sought an award of exemplary damages of £15,000 from each party. Whilst I take into account the representations, I do not consider that is sufficient to deter them, and others, from engaging in "cash for crash" fraud. I am satisfied that given the extent of the egregious conduct and given the extent of this conspiracy as set out in the Similar Fact Evidence Ms Yaman and Mr Zada should each pay £18,000.

There will be judgment for Tesco accordingly and I shall ask Counsel to calculate the appropriate interest in respect of the compensatory element.

Ms Yaman also received an insurance pay out from her GAP insurers. If her GAP insurers can be identified, they should be sent a copy of this judgment. I consider they should pursue Ms Yaman for their outlay as the payment was secured by false representations.

I cannot leave this judgment without reference to Mr Parmar. In the light of his clear frank admissions, I require Tesco to write to the Attorney General to investigate matters further and consider whether he should be prosecuted. Tesco will make it clear by that reference this is as per my direction, and they are required to do so, and the order will so reflect.

Finally, this case, and others, would not have been brought to light without the diligence and forensic work undertaken by those instructed on behalf of Tesco. It is to their credit that they have worked tirelessly to ensure all the evidence is put before the court in a comprehensive objective manner. Further they have complied with all my directions in relation to that presentation thereby ensuring all the parties have had every opportunity to consider it and respond accordingly. Their endeavours have also enabled me to release the judgment at the earliest opportunity. I am grateful for their assistance.

MANISH PARMAR

Manish Parmar has confirmed he was paid £200, to drive into collision with the Claimant's Vehicle directed by two individuals.

Manish Parmar has been the Tesco driver in five collisions, all of which he has confessed were staged collisions in exchange for payment:

MOHAMMED NAMDAR

SHAHIN MOURADI

BAKYIAR ABDULLA

Case 11 Hashim Al Hashimi.

Case 12 Abdulla

Case 18 Hayder Mohamed.

FLORIN DANILA

Cases 7, (the index matter)

Case 11,

Case 12,

Case 18, and

Case 32.

Case 25 Danila

Case 26 Al Shamary.

Case 28 Danila.

Case 32 Uwe Kirschner.

Case 14 (Bower Lally) as the recovery and storage garage.

Case 5 (Khattawi) as the Claimant's husband, Faisal Dawood, is confirmed to be a Sales Manager at JRJ Ltd.

Case 6 Sayahi – 16/09/2019.

Case 22 Yagli – 08/07/2019.

Case 24 Garousi – 02/09/2019.

THE CLAIMANT'S VEHICLE

The Claimant's Vehicle (Blue BMW registration LR17 OBT) was subject to a hire purchase using finance obtained on 24.04.2018:

3.1. The cost of the vehicle was £21,980.52 with 36 monthly payments of £249.32.

3.2. The Claimant failed to notify Black Horse Finance that the Claimant's Vehicle had been involved in a collision or that it had been declared a total loss.

3.3. The Claimant sought settlement figures for her finance agreement on 10.09.2018, 10.09.2019 and 18.05.2020.

3.4. The Claimant's finance agreement was settled in full on 02.03.2021.

3.5. Blakes Assessor's report that the Claimant's Vehicle was allegedly stored and inspected at Hano Autos, 2 Creek Road London, SE8 3EL. This is disputed and dealt with at paragraph 55 below.

HANO AUTOS/ AWARA MARIO

Hano Autos 2 Creek Road, Deptford, SE8 3E is the alleged inspection locations provided by Blake Assessors in the following:

4.1. Hano Auto UK Limited is directed by Niaz Saleh who confirmed with Companies House he had changed his name from Awara Saleh to Niaz Saleh on 19.02.2015.

4.2. Awara Mario in his Linkedin profile reports he is the director of Hano Autos Limited.

4.3. The three apparently distinct companies; Hano Autos UK Limited, Hano UK Limited and Hano Autos Ltd all share directors in Niaz/Awara Saleh/Awara Mario and those companies share the following addresses:

4.4. Hano Autos therefore appears to operate from 4 addresses:

4.5. 7 Westmoreland House, Cumberland Park, Scrubs Lane, London, NW10 6RE (the address for Hano Autos UK Limited, Hano Autos Ltd and Hano UK Limited) is the former registered address of P&A Motors UK Limited which is directed by Arkan Ibrahim:

4.6. Arkan Ibrahim is the registered director of Alaska Motors t/a Lola Trading Limited with the former registered address of Unit 9a Abbey Industrial Estate Mount Pleasant Wembley HA0 1NR;

4.7. Awara Mario has a Facebook account in which he is friends with Nadim Jawaheri and on which he 'loved' a post made by Nadim Jawaheri.

NADEEM JAWAHERI

Adel Motlaghi Sayahi, Claimant in Case 6.

Omar Al Hashimi, who in turn is friends with Hashim Al Hashimi, Claimant in Case 11.

Rinas Ahmed (Facebook profile Rinas Osman), Claimant in Case 16.

Tariq Faris, Claimant in Case 30.

ROJ MOTORS

4.8. Unit 20b Abbey Industrial Estate, Mount Pleasant, Wembley, HA0 1NR is the address at which ROJ Motors is reported to operate from:

4.9. A Google search for 'Roj Motors' returns no positive results and therefore no further information regarding the garage has been ascertained. A further Google search was carried out for '20b Abbey Industrial Estate' and a copy of the results are available.

4.10. A Google images show the address '20b' on the Abbey Industrial Estate.

4.11. Unit 9B Abbey Industrial Estate, Mount Pleasant, Wembley, HA0 1NR is the address given for the storage and inspection location for the Claimant's vehicle in Case 3 and Case 20.

4.12. Unit 9a Abbey Industrial Estate Mount Pleasant Wembley HA0 1NR is the same address as HS Motors Limited which is the garage used by the Claimant in Case 20.

NOEL KHUASHABA

4.13. Unit 7 Sabre House, Belvue Road, London, UB5 5QJ is one of the addresses used by Hano Autos which is also used by Noel Khuashaba.

4.14. Noel Khuashaba was previously or is still the director of the following companies all found at:

4.15. Noel Khuashaba has a Facebook account under the name NoelYNoel as explained at paragraph 67 of the statement of Graham Douglas.

4.16. Noel Khuashaba and Ghaith Al-Waili were both directors of Expert Rock Limited.

GHAITH AL WAILI

4.17. As well as directing both directing Expert Rock Limited, Noel Khuashaba and Ghaith Al-Waili are also 'friends' on Facebook.

4.18. Wish Lounge Limited's Instagram profile is friends with the following:

4.19. Ghaith Al Waili is the project manager at Petrichor Designs Limited.

4.20. The address for Wish Lounge, Unit 1 Belvue Business Centre Belvue Road, Northolt, UB5 5QJ is the address of B1 Capital Cars Limited which is controlled by Biar Hiawazi.

4.21. A search on Google for 'Wish Lounge' identified that the business appears to have moved premises to the address of Johnson House, Johnsons Way, London, NW10 7PF.

JOHNSON HOUSE / MARTAZA AL HAMADI

4.22. Perivale Motor Group's registered address is PMG House, Johnsons Way, London, NW10 7PF. Martaza Al Hamadi provided his correspondence address as 44 Bideford Avenue, Perivale, Greenford, UB6 7PP.

4.23. Martaza Al Hamadi was Director of Logistic Solutions 613 Ltd.

BIAR HAWAIZI

4.24. Biar Hawaizi is or has been the director of the following companies:

BOWER LALLY

4.25. The address of Sabre House, Belvue Road, Northolt, UB5 5QJ and 42 & 44 Bideford Avenue, UB6 7PP are connected to Bower Lally as set out below.

4.26. Bower Lally is registered as the director of the following companies:

100c Welley Road, Staines, TW19 5HQ between 13/11/2018 and 14/01/2019,

Sabichi House, 5 Wadsworth Road, Perivale, Greenford, UB6 7JD between 14/01/2019 and 05/06/2019,

However, upon searching the postcode it appears that the address is in fact 'Bideford Avenue UB6 7PP'.

OK Valeting London Limited featured in the recent claim by Bower Lally against Tesco, accident dated 21/02/2022.

4.27. 100c Welley Road, Staines, TW19 5HQ is the address of BL Motors Limited (run by Bower Lally) and is also the registered address of R & A Repairs Limited which is directed by Rinas Ahmed.

RINAS AHMED

4.28. Rinas Ahmed the Claimant in Case 16 collided with Tesco Driver Rakesh Lakhman.

4.29. Rinas Ahmed is the director of R & A Repairs Limited.

4.30. Rinas Ahmed and Bower Lally have therefore owned and insured the same vehicles M88BWR and W8BWR on policies of insurance.

4.31. R & A Repairs Limited is the name of the policy holder who collided with Mohammed Namdar – Claimant in Case 2 in his previous accident on 20.04.2019.

4.32. In Case 14 Bower Lally was driving a Mercedes Benz registration YE64 ZNT which he became the registered keeper of on 17.11.2014. Bower Lally entered into a finance agreement for the Vehicle on 20.05.2016.

MOUSA MOHAMAD ISSA

4.33. Sabichi House, 5 Wadsworth Road, Perivale, Greenford, UB6 7JD is the registered address of W3 Car Repairs Limited, a company directed by Mousa Mohamad Issa.

4.34. Mousa Mohamad Issa is the director of Larini Car Sales Ltd.

Note 1 [Back]

Note 2 As the Court of Appeal made it clear in Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd [1957] 1 Q.B. 247. See too Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd v Urumov [2014] EWHC 191 (Comm) at [84]–[91] (Eder J).  Whyfe v Michael Cullen & Partners [1993] E.G.C.S. 193 and ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Come Harvest Holdings Ltd [2022] EWHC 229 (Comm) at [427] (Calver J). 3 In Libyan Investment Authority v King [2020] EWHC 440 (Ch) at [123]–[126] and In ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Come Harvest Holdings Ltd [2022] EWHC 229 (Comm) at [427. 4 Barley v Muir [2018] EWHC 619 (QB) at [177] (Soole J) [Back]

Note 3 [Back]

Note 4 [Back]

Note 5 5 Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 [Back]

Note 6 As above at 376 [Back]

Note 7 OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG [2015] EWHC 666 (Comm) [Back]

Note 8 Barry v Croskey (1861) 2 J. & H. 1, 23) approved by Lord Cairns in Peek v Gurney (1873) 6 H.L. 377 at 412 [Back]

Note 9 Zagora Management Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc [2019] EWHC 140 (TCC) ; and Ahuja Investments Ltd v Victorygame Ltd [2021] EWHC 2382 (Ch) [Back]

Note 10 Parallel Imports (Europe) Ltd v Radivan [2007] EWCA Civ 1373 . [Back]

Note 11 See Crofter (at 495–496, per Lord Porter) cited at ft13 below [Back]

Note 12 Allen v Flood [1898] Lord Watson at 108 [Back]

Note 13 Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co v Veitch [1942] at 445, per Lord Simon LC; Lonrho v Fayed [1992] at 467, per Lord Bridge. See now also Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Total Network SL [2008] at paras 41 and 56 [Back]