The recent High Court judgment of Master Sullivan in QXK (a Protected Party by her Mother and Litigation Friend, RJZ) & Mr Clifford Cox v Mr Conrad Bair & UK Insurance Ltd [2025] EWHC 2492 (KB), which can be accessed in full here, illustrates how determined legal work and expert evidence can prove liability in a “hit and run,” the kind of case that often underpins a life-changing injury claim handled by injury lawyers.

This was a highly unusual ‘whodunnit’ 5‑day quasi‑criminal liability trial at the Royal Courts of Justice. An initially unidentified vehicle collided with our clients in the early hours of the morning on a 20 mph/semi‑pedestrianised street in London, a scenario sadly familiar in road traffic accidents pursued by a personal injury solicitor on a No Win No Fee personal injury basis.

The Accident

In the early hours of 20 June 2021, our clients, QXK and Mr Cox, were saying goodnight to friends on Dartmouth Road, Forest Hill, London, when a dark‑coloured VW Passat Estate struck them at speed. Both were thrown into the air. Mr Cox suffered multiple fractures but made a relatively good recovery, while QXK sustained catastrophic life‑changing brain injuries, resulting in serious disability. The car did not stop, and there were no witnesses able to identify the make, model, or driver at the scene.

There was CCTV of the accident, which is quite shocking to watch as the victims are seen being tossed like ragdolls by a dark car doing between 34 and 37 mph in a 20‑mph zone on a dark rainy night. The vehicle registration cannot be seen on the CCTV.

The Investigation: From Dead End to Breakthrough

The police were unable to identify the make and model of the car from the available CCTV footage, believing that it could be any number of medium‑sized saloon cars.

However, Levenes Solicitors, acting for the clients, as advised by Chris Bright KC and Paul Evans of No5 Chambers, instructed a specialist expert, Matt Cass of Acuity Forensics, who has years of experience of CCTV analysis, who was able to determine from the footage that the vehicle was a VW Passat Estate, and, crucially, that it was a model manufactured between (2006–2010). It was important to avoid confirmation bias, and so Mr Cass viewed the CCTV without being told anything more. Later, an expert instructed by the insurers of the car came to the same conclusion.

A VW badge was found at the scene, further supporting the identification. Mr Cass was not told this. Mr Cass was able to say, from frame‑by‑frame analysis, in a later report, that the badge was not visible on the ground prior to the collision but then appeared afterwards, making it clear that it had come from the vehicle, a point that was disputed by the insurers of the car, for no apparent reason. This evidence identifying the car as a VW Passat came much later, long after the police had closed their investigation believing that they could not say what the make and model of the car might be on the advice of their own CCTV experts.

A 2006 dark blue VW Passat Estate was reported stolen later on the same day as the accident, specifically at 7:30 PM on 20 June 2021. The accident itself occurred at around 1:54 AM that morning, so the report was made approximately 18 hours after the crash.

Crash and Burn

The theft of the VW Passat Estate was made by a man calling himself “Roman Bair” (the name under which the car was registered), but the phone used to make the call was linked to the Defendant, Mr Conrad Bair through its IMEI number, as established by police from previous arrests. The caller gave details that matched the false registration documents and claimed the car had been parked at an address that was later found to be false. The police believed the caller was not actually Mr Conrad Bair, but someone acting on his behalf, and the court found that the report was part of an attempt to cover up the involvement of the car in the accident, the sort of evasive conduct our serious injury solicitors often encounter when progressing a serious injury claim arising from road traffic accidents, where early guidance from an experienced personal injury solicitor helps preserve and analyse evidence.

Just 3 days after the accident, the police recovered the supposedly stolen VW Passat of the same model and colour, which had been torched and was burnt out. Although the car was destroyed, notably, the insurance policy had been fraudulently taken out in another name, but with Mr Conrad Bair as the named driver, with a different year of birth, giving the appearance of legitimacy, though the police did not know about the fraudulent insurance policy for reasons that are not clear to this day.

Police Interview of Mr Conrad Bair

The police interview of Mr Conrad Bair was a part of the evidence in the case. During his police interview, Mr Conrad Bair largely gave “no comment” answers, especially when questioned about the accident, the ownership or control of the vehicle, and the reporting of the car as stolen and subsequently burnt out.

When cross examined in court, he was evasive, avoided answering direct questions, and was not a credible witness. The court found that his evidence about his whereabouts was not truthful and an attempt to hide where he actually was at the time of the accident.

Linking the Driver to the Vehicle

Despite the lack of direct evidence or eyewitness identification, we were able to piece together a compelling circumstantial case:

• The car was bought and registered in the name of “Roman Bair” (Mr Conrad Bair’s son), at a false address.
• The insurance policy listed Mr Conard Bair as the named driver, with his date of birth (but the wrong year).
• The phone used to report the car “stolen” after the accident was previously in Mr Conrad Bair’s possession.
• Mr Conrad Bair gave no credible account of his whereabouts at the time of the accident and was found to have lied repeatedly during the proceedings.

The court had no difficulty in finding on the basis of the evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, it was his car, and he had been the driver. This is the kind of evidential chain that experienced injury solicitors build to advance a serious injury claim, ensuring that victims receive focused support from a personal injury solicitor while liability is proved on the civil standard.

Although it was not necessary to do so in view of the findings of fact, the court also applied a line of authorities dating back to Barnard v Sully (1931) 47 TLR 55, including Ende v Cassidy [1964] Crim. L.R. 595 and Elliott v Loake [1982] 1 WLUK 802, which establish a rebuttable presumption that the owner or keeper of a vehicle is the driver unless they can prove otherwise. Mr Conrad Bair was unable to rebut this presumption.

The driver had no valid insurance but under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the insurer (in this case- UK Insurance Ltd) is obliged to satisfy the judgment against the driver, even where the policy was fraudulently obtained, provided the vehicle was insured at the time.

In this case the insurer stood “four square” behind Mr Conrad Bair and even called him as a witness, arguing that the case against him was based on coincidences. They chose therefore to fight the case with an unreliable and, as it turned out, dishonest witness.

Indemnity Costs: A Warning Against Dishonesty

After hearing submissions from Leading Counsel, Chris Bright KC, the court ordered indemnity costs against Mr Conrad Bair because of his repeated dishonesty taking the case “out of the norm”. The court applied the principles set out by Coulson LJ in Thakkar and others v Mican and another [2024] EWCA Civ 552, making clear that parties who lie and obstruct the course of justice can expect to pay a heavy price, a point our serious injury solicitors regularly explain to clients considering how such conduct may affect costs in an injury claim.

The Legal Team

The Claimants were represented by Tim Beasley, Partner and Head of Catastrophic Injury, and Dagmara Sztynyk, Associate Solicitor at Levenes Solicitors, with Chris Bright KC of No.5 Chambers instructed by Levenes Solicitors as Leading Counsel.

What This Judgment Shows About Levenes’ Approach

This case shows how Levenes Solicitors, along with our instructed Leading Counsel, Chris Bright KC, provided a convincing, circumstantial case, despite the lack of direct evidence, thanks to meticulous forensic analysis, targeted expert instruction, and persistent case‑building to secure justice even without direct eyewitness identification. By working with a CCTV specialist, interrogating police evidence, phone and insurance records, and robust advocacy, which was decisive in securing justice for our clients, QXK and Mr Cox.

Our legal team converted a “hit and run” into a clear finding of liability. These elements were crucial to the success of the QXK and Mr Cox’s case.

Our legal team

1. Identified and presented a coherent narrative linking Mr Conrad Bair to VW Passat Estate.
2. Relied on legal presumptions (e.g., the rebuttable presumption that the owner of a vehicle is its driver) to strengthen the inference-based argument.
3. Anticipated and addressed the defences of coincidence and lack of direct proof, which were central to the Second Defendant’s case.
4. Commissioned expert CCTV analysis from Mr Cass, whose evidence was ultimately preferred by the court over the Second Defendant’s expert.
5. Ensured the expert reports were aligned with the civil standard of proof, unlike the opposing expert who applied the criminal standard.
6. Ensured key evidence (e.g., police statements, ANPR data, DVLA records) was admitted and properly contextualized.
7. Responded effectively to late disclosures and supplemental evidence, preserving the strength of our case.
8. Exposed inconsistencies and evasions in Mr Conard Bair’s statement.
9. Demonstrated that Mr Conard Bair’s account was dishonest and unreliable.

The work we did led to:

1. A finding that Mr Conard Bair was the driver of the VW Passat Estate.
2. A judgment in favour of the Claimants.
3. An award of indemnity costs against Mr Conrad Bair, justified by his dishonest conduct, an outcome that reflects the strength and integrity of the Claimants’ legal team.

For victims of road traffic accidents and those seeking brain injury and life changing injury solicitors, to bring a serious injury claim, the judgment demonstrates how a careful, evidence‑led strategy can succeed. It also underlines that dishonesty carries consequences and that victims can pursue compensation with experienced serious injury solicitors on a No Win No Fee personal injury basis.

If you or someone you know has suffered a serious injury, our experienced serious injury solicitors can help you pursue justice on a No Win No Fee basis. Contact Levenes Solicitors to discuss your case today.