King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

QB-2018-004997 - [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)

Fecha: 09-Sep-2025

The car

183.

The Claimant was unable to explain why she had included a claim for a purchase of an automatic vehicle in her June 2021 witness statement. I find the reason she could not explain it was that she had no regard for whether it was true or not. She is responsible for that untruthful statement and for the inclusion of a false claim within her 2022 schedule endorsed with a statement of truth that she bought a vehicle in 2018 for £9,000 when, in fact, she did not.

184.

I find that the Claimant did indeed own two white Audi A3s, the first having a VIN ending in 1703 and the second ending in 5347. She transferred the number plate from one to the other. I refer to them as 1703 and 5347 below. The diligent research of Ms Mallaney produced the evidence in support of this. Its cogency gradually increased and eventually reached the point where I find it was irrefutable:

The Claimant bought 1703 in 2015. It had a registration plate BL10 BUF and its mileage at purchase was 120,413 miles.

ii)

The vehicle subject to surveillance in March 2022 was registered as having manual transmission. I find that was indeed 1703. The Claimant was managing the manual transmission.

iii)

In July 2022, after the disclosure of the surveillance the Claimant was asked to produce evidence of the transmission of 1703 and the adaptations she had had done to it.

iv)

The Claimant did not respond to the Defendant’s request for the V5 for her vehicle. The Defendant invites the inference, which I accept, that that was because that would have shown that 1703 had manual transmission and her evidence about adaptations was false;

In October 2022 the automatic white Audi 5347, (BK12 NTX) was put on sale. It was sold on 1 December 2022 and its plate was changed on 3 December 2022 to BL10 BUF. The keeper of 1703 also changed on the same date. I find this is evidence that the Claimant sold 1703 and bought 5347. She then changed the plates;

vi)

The mileage recorded for the vehicle BL10 BUF is recorded in July 2023 to be 94,877 miles, less than the recorded miles for 1703 at the time the Claimant bought that car in 2015. The reason for that I find is that the mileage was that of 5347.

vii)

The documents disclosed by the Claimant during the trial contained both VIN numbers.

viii)

A comparison of the decal stickers on the surveillance in March 2022 with the decal stickers on the car in the video exhibited by the Claimant to her 12 July 2025 statement shows them to be obviously different.

185.

The Claimant’s evidence is that she has driven the same car since 2010. For the reasons set out in the paragraph above I find that is not the case. I note that the Claimant’s closing submissions (perhaps realistically) did not suggest that I positively find that the car in 2025 was the same car as in the 2022 surveillance. I am asked either to find that the evidence is insufficient to come to a conclusion on or that if I find there were two cars, then I should find that the Claimant did not know that to be the case. I do not accept that is plausible. Anyone who drives a car knows when it has been changed. In the Claimant’s case she had the added assistance of the different stickers. Further, she would have had to fill in the paperwork for the sale of her vehicle and the transfer of its plate.

186.

I have set out my findings without rehearsing the contents of the Facebook Messages. They demonstrate that the Claimant was looking for someone to give false evidence that alterations had been undertaken to her car in 2018, when that had not happened. Her explanations for the messages she wrote do not accord with the natural meaning of the words she used and I reject all of them. The natural interpretation of the messages is that she wanted to conceal the fact that she was still driving a manual vehicle and wanted to find someone who would corroborate that. If her priority had been to track down the Paul Barton who had actually done the work on her vehicle, that is what she would have focused on in her messages. The messages do not suggest a particular difficulty in tracking him down. Second, if her explanation that she was running out of time to find him were correct, she would have shared her difficulties with her solicitor and asked him what she should do.

187.

The timing of the change of the number plate is consistent with that having been alighted on as the best way forward to maintain what was a false account of vehicle adaptations that never took place.