KB-2024-001402 - [2025] EWHC 2492 (KB)

It is correct that there is no evidence directly proving that the Collision Passat is the Burned Passat or that Mr Bair was driving the Burned Passat. There is no direct evidence that the Burned Passat was at the accident location, and no phone data showing the handset was at the collision location or Ryan Court, or that it belonged to Mr Bair at the time of the accident.

Mr Bright argues that there are however sufficient facts to find by inference that the Passats are the same car and Mr Bair was the driver. Mr Vincent argues that such evidence as there exists is no more than coincidence. In order for me to be able to find that the Burned and Collision Passat are the same car there would have to be a much more unique car, for example, a bright pink Lamborghini. He submits in the absence

I reject that submission. I must look at the evidence as a whole and decide what is proved on the balance of probability. I bear in mind that, in looking at the evidence, coincidences, even extraordinary ones, do happen regularly and are just coincidence. I do not accept that the level of detail in Mr Vincent’s example would be required for me to find, on the balance of probabilities the Collision Passat and Burned Passat are the same car.

Therefore I must consider the evidence that there is and findings that I have made and come to a view on whether the Claimants have proved their case on the balance of probabilities. In summary the following evidence is relevant to that determination:

I find that the description of the tall man is consistent with Mr Bair. I bear in mind it is not entirely consistent and DI Andrews thought it was not a good match. The evidence about the 2009 registration Golf is consistent, although I accept that the VW Golf is a common car.

Mr Bair had no good explanation why the DVLA SORN letter in his son’s name was sent to his address. It is most likely in my judgment that he registered the BMW in his son’s name. He said the car may have been associated with a previous address of his. That does not explain how the letter was sent to his address, and makes it more likely it is because he was using his son’s name to register the car.

The Burned Passat was also registered in his son’s name. The call to report it stolen was made using a handset he had owned not long before the call. That same car had his name on the insurance. When he was asked by the police if he knew Roman Bair, he said no comment and when asked who he was, he said he didn’t know. He clearly must have known he had a son called Roman Bair and he was not honest in his answer.

The car was reported as stolen on the day of the accident. The person reporting it knew the details on the V5 and that there was only one key. They knew those details were fake as the call was not made from the address the caller stated and the caller was not Roman Bair. There must have been a reason the car was reported stolen by someone using false details and was then torched a few days later. That reason cannot have been a genuine desire to report a stolen car to find it or be able to make an insurance claim. The details given, the name and address are false, the insurance policy was in a fake name and there was no contact detail for any follow up other than the phone number, which was not used again after that day.

The suggestion, not made by Mr Bair, but agreed to in questioning that he has been the victim of an identity theft to explain the insurance document seems to me less likely than that he took out the insurance.

The fact that Mr Bair has a previous conviction for driving without insurance means he is someone who has been prepared to drive without insurance in the past. He is also someone who has on at least two occasions to have driven below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver. Of course that does not mean of itself that he did on this occasion without more. Also I accept that he must have had insurance in respect of the VW Golf in December 2020 or he would have been charged with driving without insurance.

Mr Vincent submitted that I should take into account that Mr Bair has pleaded guilty to every office he has been convicted of and has never been found untruthful by a jury. I do not think that takes me very far. Certainly the majority of the offences he has pleaded guilty to are the sort where he was caught red handed.

In my judgment Mr Bair’s evidence as to where he was on the evening of the 20^th of June was not truthful. He might have been “gilding the lily” as it is difficult to prove one is at home when there are no witnesses. On balance however I find he was trying to hide where he in fact was. He did have an opportunity to tell the police in interview where he was but did not do so. His evidence in his witness statement and in court were not credible.

His evidence in his witness statement that he was banned on a totting basis before the accident was in my judgement an attempt to exculpate himself and to minimise the seriousness of the ban. I do not accept saying that the ban was for totting rather than drug driving is a mistake. That is not the sort of thing that can be easily mistaken.

I should make it clear that I do not reject Mr Bair’s evidence because he has a criminal history, nor because he was not a calm and measured witness. I reject his evidence for the reasons I have set out. He was not, as Mr Vincent submitted a witness whose answers were reasonable such that the points put to him melted away. He deflected, obscured, and distracted rather than answering honestly and fully.