In the case of Leonel Zimi and London Central Bus Company Limited, heard in the Central London County Court on 8th January 2015, the Claimant brought a claim against the bus company for personal injury, care, travel and miscellaneous expenses.

The Claimant pleaded that the Defendant's bus encroached into his lane when his vehicle was stationary and collided with the rear passenger side of his vehicle. The Defendant maintained their vehicle was stationary due to traffic and red traffic lights when the Claimant drove up next to the bus in the offside lane. The Defendant maintained that there was no collision and relied upon the CCTV footage from the bus, showing that the bus did not stray out of it's lane or drive into the Claimant's vehicle. Interestingly the damage, on the documents provided, was mainly to the offside rear of the Claimant's bumper and not the nearside, there was a minor paint scuff to the nearside rear wheel arch but this was minimal and there was no paint transfer.

The Claimant reported that he was thrown forward in the collision, that he experienced pain in his neck and shoulder for three months, that his duties at work had been reduced and that his daily life had been affected by the injury. He obtained a medical report in support of his claim. The Claimant's expert said that he had suffered a whiplash injury.

This expert was not provided with the Claimant's full medical records and prepared his report without having sight of the same. The Claimant had been involved in at least two other accidents, one in August 2010 and another in May 2011, the index accident being in June 2012. The Claimant disclosed his medical reports in relation to those accidents. The Claimant had a medical examination as a result of the accident in May 2011, in September 2012, which was just 2½ months post the index accident. The Claimant made no mention of the index accident to this expert and he appeared to be fully recovered from any injuries and did not report any problems to the expert. He reported a 3 month injury as a result of the accident in May 2011 and the same in relation to the accident in August 2010 and the alleged index accident on 23rd June 2012. The Claimant must have therefore been fully recovered earlier than the 3 months reported to the expert in the index accident, as he was not exhibiting or complaining of any problems when he was examined for the purpose of the May 2011 accident in September 2012. The Claimant also failed to provide any documentary evidence from his employers in relation to the light duties which the Claimant was allegedly on for 2 months following the index accident.

In all of the accidents that the Claimant has been involved in, he did not seek any medical treatment at all. However the Claimant did attend his GP following each of the accidents and not once mention the accidents or injuries that he had sustained despite them being within the 3 month period that he was experiencing problems.

The Claimant accepted during cross-examination that he did not see the bus move into his lane. He said that he was first aware of the bus when he felt the collision. He was also not able to identify from the CCTV when his car was pushed forward.

DJ Madge said "Having seen the CCTV, I am not satisfied that there was any collision. Even if there was a collision, I am satisfied that the Defendant's bus was, at the material time, stationary. If there was a collision, any collision was due to the Claimant's vehicle moving to the right and the rear of the vehicle swinging to the left."

The Judge dismissed the Claimant's claim, the judgment for the Defendant, a finding that the Claimant's claim was fundamentally dishonest, and that it was just to apply the exception to CPR 44.16. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant's costs on the standard basis, summarily assessed in the sum of £3,500.