[2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

In my judgment, the fundamental problem with the Claimant’s witness statement and evidence at trial was that it was contradictory to what he said after the accident to AP and to the hospital doctors. I do not accept that both or either of AP and a doctor independently came up with the same theory for his crash, or that he denied their theories and yet they still recorded those accounts, despite his denial. I consider that the records made independently by AP and the doctor at the second hospital, corroborated in part by the first hospital records, are likely to be accurate. Thus, I consider that the Claimant changed his evidence between February and July 2020. I do not consider that his explanation of having an unclear or muddled recollection is likely to be correct either. The medical notes record no pre or post traumatic amnesia. To the contrary, they record that he could recall the mechanism of the accident. Furthermore, the way the Claimant and his then partner later set about a line by line barrage of criticism of the briefing was inappropriate, artificial and at odds with his making no such allegations straight after the accident. He is a Medico-legal expert in the USA. He understands records and liability for negligence. If he believed that AP had sped off leaving him desperately trying to catch up, I consider that he would not have omitted some mention of that. Instead, he admitted full responsibility and offered to pay for the SM and explained that he accidentally pushed the accelerator.

The Claimant’s case also altered again as the claim progressed. The PAP allegations were not the same as the Particulars of Claim. The pleaded claim was founded on the accident being caused by too much speed at turn 2, not accidental throttle. The cause of the speed was the alleged absence of the guide, who had driven too far ahead, leaving the Claimant desperate to catch up. This was so despite the Claimant’s own expert, Mr Klammer, favouring accidental throttle as the cause. Yet no alternative case was introduced by an application to amend before trial. Further, as the trial progressed, there was a perceptible shift to an alternative claim that the accident was caused by accidental throttle. This shift was highlighted by defence counsel during the trial but it did not lead to an application to amend. In final submissions, Mr Block KC bravely and elegantly attempted to weld the accidental throttle claim onto the pleaded claim, but the Claimant himself had never based his evidence for the Court on that having occurred and denied that he ever said he had caused accidental throttle after the accident.

In his live evidence the Claimant gave focussed, well controlled answers and avoided straying off his chosen piste. But I found his evidence illogical and contrived. For a man with substantial experience of driving super cars, with very high intelligence and a clear understanding of the dangers of driving at speed on corners, he based his case on ignoring those dangers and desperately wanting to keep up with a guide. He served and relied on Mr Arnold’s reconstruction, which was based on the assumption that he used maximum acceleration along straight 2 and reach 60-66 kph going around turn 2. This was an inherently unlikely and deeply faulted assumption.

AP wrote his witness statement with frankness and gave his evidence is the same way. He freely admitted he did not look back in straight 2. He was always going to face criticism for that. He took it on the chin. In my judgment he was not the sort of witness who would tailor his evidence. I was impressed by his honesty. Likewise, I found Mr Satta to be a straightforward and helpful witness who was doing his best to give his evidence fairly. Some of his evidence implied criticism of AP but he did not shrink from setting out his opinion on guiding standards.

Where the evidence of the Claimant contradicts the evidence of AP, I prefer AP’s factual account. I reject KM’s evidence of the conversation with Mr Weir. I accept AP’s evidence about when he looked back in straight 1, what he saw and the separation distance. I accept AP’s evidence about what the Claimant said at the ambulance and I accept the hospital records of what the Claimant said there.