Case Study D: Aviva Insurance Ltd v Atiquillah Nadeem & Masoud Sidiqi
Overview:
In 2018, our client, Mr Atiquillah Nadeem was involved in a road traffic accident whilst he was front-seat passenger in a taxi driven by the second defendant and his friend, Mr Masoud Sidiqi. After the incident, Mr Nadeem sought compensation for personal injuries and instructed his previous solicitors to pursue the claim on his behalf. However, following a personal injury trial in 2021, Mr. Nadeem was found to be fundamentally dishonest due to inconsistencies in his evidence and poor performance during cross-examination. This case, originally resulting in an adverse ruling, would later be overturned after a thorough review by Shaar Bridge Solicitors.
Initial Trial and Findings:
The case was heard before Deputy District Judge Goodman in 2021, who ruled that Mr Nadeem had been fundamentally dishonest. This judgment stemmed from perceived inconsistencies in Mr. Nadeem’s evidence and his underperformance during cross-examination. However, key elements of the case, such as the oral evidence from the defendants (including Masoud Sidiqi, the taxi driver, and the other vehicle’s driver), were not considered as neither party was cross-examined.
Shaar Bridge Solicitors’ Intervention:
Upon being instructed by Mr Nadeem, the team at Shaar Bridge, led by Jaffar Shah and assisted by Emma Finch, conducted a comprehensive review of the original personal injury file. The review revealed significant issues and mishandling by Mr Nadeem’s previous solicitors. Key findings discovered by the team included:
- Inaccurate Witness Statements and Medical Reports: Mr. Nadeem had provided his previous solicitors with the correct facts regarding the accident, but these were not reflected accurately in his witness statement or the medical report.
- Failure to Review Medical Evidence: The solicitors had not adequately reviewed the medical report from Dr. Bansal before submitting it to the court, which contained inconsistencies that likely contributed to the unfavorable judgment.
- Internal Miscommunication: Correspondence within the firm revealed that incorrect assumptions were made about Mr. Nadeem’s case, and instead of seeking clarification from him, the solicitors proceeded based on these assumptions.
- Lack of Client Communication: Discrepancies in the case were not brought to Mr. Nadeem’s attention until the trial, leaving him unprepared and struggling during cross-examination.
- Failure to Provide an Interpreter: Despite English being Mr. Nadeem’s second language, no interpreter was provided during the trial, leaving him unable to fully understand the complex legal questions being posed.
- Failure to Cross-Examine Key Witnesses: The driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident was not cross-examined, even though her testimony contained inconsistencies that could have supported Mr. Nadeem’s claim.
Trial:
In October 2024, the case was heard in High Court of Justice, where Mr. Nadeem was represented by Counsel Liam Varnam. The High Court, presided over by His Honor Judge Tindal, was highly critical of the previous solicitors’ conduct, describing the case as a clear example of “how a solicitor should not conduct personal injury litigation for a claimant.”
Judge Tindal also criticised Deputy District Judge Goodman’s decision to give judgment without hearing all relevant evidence, which led to a fundamentally unfair conclusion. The judgment from the High Court rebuked the mishandling of the case and the lack of diligence in ensuring that all relevant information and evidence were considered.
Lessons Learned and Impact:
This case underscores the significant impact that poor legal representation can have on a claimant’s case. Despite being initially found fundamentally dishonest, a thorough review of the facts revealed that Mr Nadeem’s case was mismanaged by his previous solicitors, leading to an unjust outcome. The High Court’s ruling served as a reminder of the importance of competent legal representation.
The judgment highlighted the crucial role of effective case management, diligent preparation, and thorough communication with clients. Had these elements been in place from the outset, the case may have been handled differently, preventing the miscarriage of justice that Mr Nadeem experienced.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, this victory demonstrates the power of careful advocacy and the importance of ensuring that legal proceedings are properly managed. Shaar Bridge Solicitors’ investigation and determination led to a favorable outcome for Mr Nadeem, who was wronged by his initial legal representation.
For full judgment please visit: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/3445.html
