The trial judge dismissed the claimant's claim that his car had been damaged in an accident involving the van which was insured by the second defendant. At the end of the judgment, the judge added that, if had been necessary for him to do so, he would have found that this was a fraudulent claim. The claimant appealed, claiming that the judge's finding of fraud was unsupportable and that in the absence of a finding of fraud, the judge could not properly have dismissed the claim because on the basis of the evidence, there had either been a conspiracy between the claimant and van driver or there had been an accident.

The Court of Appeal agreed that, since the claimant had failed to satisfy the burden of proof concerning the alleged accident, it had been unnecessary for him to address the question of fraud. The Court of Appeal also set aside the finding that the claim was fraudulent.

Nevertheless, it did not follow that the alleged accident had occurred. Citing The Popi M [1985], the Court of Appeal agreed that it is not the duty of judges to reach conclusions of fact, one way or the other, in every case. In some cases the court can say that the evidence adduced is too weak to prove anything to an appropriate standard, so the claim should fail. This was such a case.