No. Judges cannot be held in contempt of their own court. They are the ones who decide others are. His decision could have been appealed, with a high chance of success, but with no prospect of the claimant having the resources to pay the costs the insurers decided not to add even more costs to the significant ones they had already incurred in trying to fight what they knew was fraud. Which was pragmatic but still frustrating.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

As my car was parked and stationary at the time that’s not really very likely is it? The police were neither involved, nor interested. This was unrelated to anything I did. It was solely a fraud perpetrated by a criminal that succeeded. It could happen to anyone but if you choose to ignore the experience I have shared and want to waste everyone’s time with silly personal accusations there’s little I can do.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

He was invited to attend by the widow. Hopefully that answers your question

Pro USA & Israel

He wasn’t required to decide guilt or innocence. This wasn’t a criminal trial. He was required to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, it was more or less likely that the claimant had suffered the injuries he claimed and whether they caused him to have not been able to work for 2 years. In fact he found that the responsibility was shared and reduced the award accordingly. It was though a complete scam. No different to those where a moped rider dismounts at traffic lights and throws himself onto a windscreen, then falls to the ground with his mate videoing the outcome.

Fraudsters like this normally get away with it because it’s cheaper for insurers to settle than fight, because the fraudster has no assets to pay a costs award. In my case the insurers decided to fight because they believed the evidence was so strong in their favour and they wanted to have an example to use. They were unlucky to encounter a part-time Judge whose bizarre reasoning puzzled and annoyed the barrister.

You can carry on with your childish sniping if you wish but this ought to serve as a warning to everyone. I didn’t have a dash cam at the time. I do now.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Along with several ex Presidents I believe.

Not imposing themselves on a family’s grief makes sense. Perhaps the deceased was a strong Trump supporter so he was welcome but Democrats were not.

It’s unwise to make assumptions.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

[Link]

I’m sure the CBS reporting will be claimed as misinformation?