"I am of the opinion that the Mercedes has 4 separate damage profiles on the nearside. I am of the opinion that the damage into the outer edge of the roof rail, the impact into the forward section of the nearside front door and the rear section of the nearside front door and the light slanted contact marks on the rear bumper were not caused as a result of this incident. The SRS deployment is consistent with being caused when the unrelated damage occurred to the nearside doors and the B post and therefore it would be related to the possibly compatible glancing damage to the nearside rear door and nearside quarter panel…….. I am of the opinion that the unrelated damage that has caused this SRS to deploy and the structural damage to the B post would cause the Mercedes to be unroadworthy but this has not occurred as a result of contact with the Tesco Iveco so the Mercedes would not be unroadworthy as a result of the contact because it would already be unroadworthy as a result of the unrelated damage."
"As I have said, this case is a paradigm one for the award of exemplary damages. As to the amount of such damages, as was stated by Arden LJ in Ramzan v Brookwide at [82], the sum must be principled and proportionate. As in that case, given the need to deter and punish the outrageous conduct and abusive behaviour in the present context, the principled basis is to make a punitive award. The respondents have chosen not to place before the court any evidence as to their means so that it is not appropriate to limit the amount of any award by reference to ability or inability to pay …. Given the seriousness of the conduct of the respondents and the need to deter them and others from engaging in this form of "cash for crash" fraud, which has become far too prevalent and which adversely affects all those in society who are policyholders who face increased insurance premiums, I consider that the appropriate award of exemplary damages is that each of the first, second and third respondents should be liable to pay£20,000 ."