Former Lord Mayor of Exeter dishonest in personal injury claim after crash

A former Lord Mayor of Exeter was dishonest in his claim for alleged personal injuries in a minor crash, a civil court heard.

Cllr Rob Newby, for the Topsham ward, had brought his claim more than a year and a half after the incident itself.

The result of the case was recently published by Oriel Chambers after a lengthy legal battle and has been highlighted on social media in recent weeks.

In the case of Newby v Smyth, heard by Judge Cotter QC, Designated Civil Judge for Exeter, Graham Williams secured a finding that the former Cllr Newby had been fundamentally dishonest in bringing a claim for personal injuries allegedly inflicted in a crash which occurred in 2012. He was Lord Mayor of the city at the time. 

The court heard that he had brought his claim 19 and a half months after the incident.

An earlier vehicle damage claim had been rejected by the Defendant's insurers and, after he had spoken to the Defendant's insurer asserting that the only injury suffered was to the Defendant's pride - despite this having been stated during a period when the Claimant's symptoms would have allegedly been so significant that he could not carry more than a loaf of bread and a packet of biscuits, if shopping. 

The claim was noted to have limped out of the blocks with limitation date issue and a four month delay for service. 

Mr Newby provided evidence which conflicted with itself as to whether he was or was not aware of damage to his vehicle at the time of the incident.

It was also found that he had failed to disclose a previous significant neck injury to one medical expert and had misled another medical expert as to the nature of the neck problem he suffered from, before the incident in question.

He was also found to have provided conflicting information as to whether he was or was not aware of his ability to claim for personal injury damages. 

His assertions concerning recovery periods (to different medical experts and in his witness statement) were a cause for concern, with him apparently aligning his evidence with the changing medical position.

The Claimant provided evidence for the first time in Court that the Defendant's vehicle had over-ridden his tow bar so as to cause damage to his rear bumper and to a spare wheel cover fixed to the back door of his Land Rover.

The prosecution said that this was despite the Defendant having described the incident as a mere tap and where there was no damage visible to the Defendant's smaller lighter vehicle and no explanation of how the Defendant's vehicle came to detach itself from the Claimant's vehicle.

Additionally, there was nothing that the Claimant could see in photographs as representing the damage of which he complained.

Mr Rob Newby also denied having problems with road rage or anger prior to the incident - it being the Defendant's case that Mr Newby was very aggressive at the scene - although such matters were established by two entries in his GP records citing aggression to other motorists, amongst other events of aggression. 

Mr Newby's assertion that he had forgotten about his previous aggressive episodes was not accepted by the Judge.

The Claimant's account of having been launched off the seat in his parked vehicle by the incident, punching his feet down onto the pedals and having jammed on the pedals so that he broke the rear brake light switch was found to be exaggerated. 

It was also noted that Mr Robert Newby had not sought any medical treatment for his injuries, despite him obviously not knowing if and when he would recover, and when he had been a very frequent attender on his GP before the incident and had attended his GP for other matters following the incident. 

Mr Newby was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis following the dismissal of his claim and removal of his QOWCS protection. 

When approached by Devon Live for comment Cllr Newby said he was "the loser, not the winner" and is now "£9,000 out of pocket":

He added: "I have been unable to contact the lawyers who advised me to bring proceedings for the RTC that happened in 2012.

"It is correct that l lost my claim for damages and as a result l had to pay both mine and the Defendants legal cost."