Ford v Nominal Defendant

In the matter of Ford v Nominal Defendant, the appellant, who suffered injuries from a motor accident involving an unidentified vehicle, appealed against a decision that he had failed to conduct a proper inquiry and search to establish the identity of the vehicle or driver. The primary judge held that the appellant’s failure to attempt to obtain the number-plate details immediately after the accident constituted a failure to engage in a “proper inquiry and search.” The appellant argued that a “proper inquiry and search” did not require him to pursue the vehicle immediately after the incident as he was unaware of his injuries. The respondent contended that “proper inquiry and search” required the appellant to return to the incident site on a subsequent evening or to look for the unidentified vehicle in the local road network. The court had to determine whether the appellant had made a “proper inquiry and search” in the circumstances in which he was placed.

The court considered whether the appellant was required to pursue the vehicle immediately after the incident or to return to the scene at a later time to attempt to identify the vehicle. The court noted that the appellant had not thought about giving chase during the 20 seconds after the incident and was in a state of shock. The court held that the suggested search of the local road network on a subsequent occasion or observing at the scene of the incident on a subsequent evening would be unlikely to be productive. Therefore, “proper inquiry and search” did not require those steps to be carried out.

The court found that the appellant had established that “proper inquiry and search” did not require him to undertake the steps suggested by the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and the orders dated 31 August 2022 were set aside. The appellant’s claim was allowed, with judgment entered for the appellant against the respondent for the agreed quantum of his claim, together with interest to be assessed, if not agreed. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to proceeding BS317/21 and the costs of the appeal. Submissions may need to be made at an appropriate time as to whether the costs at first instance and on appeal should be on the indemnity basis, as sought in the Notice of Appeal.

ORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The orders dated 31 August 2022 be set aside.
3. The appellant’s claim be allowed, with judgment entered for the appellant against the respondent for the agreed quantum of his claim, together with interest to be assessed, if not agreed.
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to proceeding BS317/21.
5. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. Submissions may need to be made at an appropriate time as to whether the costs at first instance and on appeal should be on the indemnity basis, as sought in the Notice of Appeal.