England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions

Uddin & Anor v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd. [2002] EWHC 276 (QB) (28th February, 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

		St. Dunstan’s House, 133-137, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1HD
		28 February 2002

H.H. Judge Richard Seymour Q. C. :

Introduction

1. The Claimants, Mr. Syed Sajid Uddin and Mr. Kamal Uddin, are brothers. They are the joint owners of the property known as and situate at 3, Benedict Road, Mitcham, Surrey. In this judgment I shall refer to that property as “the Property”. The Property comprises a substantial family house on three storeys. For the purposes of this action Mr. Stephen Burbridge was instructed as a single joint expert on matters concerning building works. He produced a report dated October 2001 in which he described the Property as comprising two bedrooms, a bathroom/WC, a storage/dressing room and a landing on the second floor; four bedrooms, a bathroom/WC and a landing on the first floor; and four rooms, a kitchen, a bathroom/WC and an entrance hall on the ground floor.
2. Both of the Claimants are married. Mr. Syed Uddin’s wife is Hamida. They were married in August 1995. Mr. Kamal Uddin’s wife is Sapana. Mr. and Mrs. Syed Uddin have a son called Majid. Majid was born on 19 January 1997. Mr. and Mrs. Kamal Uddin have no children. Mr. Syed Uddin has at least two brothers apart from Mr. Kamal Uddin, namely Kowsor, who was born in about 1988, and Kodduse, who was born in about 1991. Mr. Syed Uddin also has at least three sisters, namely Lylee, who was born in about 1982, Shaheda, who was born in about 1985, and Jhaheda, who was born in about 1992. In his witness statement dated 13 August 2001 Mr. Syed Uddin said that his brothers Kowsor and Kodduse, and his sisters Shaheda and Jhaheda normally lived with Mr. Syed Uddin’s parents at 4, Benedict Road, which is next door to the Property, but they lived with him at the Property when his parents were away.
3. On 30 November 1999 a fire broke out in the front bedroom on the second floor of the Property. Although the cause is not important for the purposes of this action, the preferred view seems to be that the fire was started by Majid Uddin playing with matches in his parents’ bedroom. The fire brigade was summoned and the fire was contained substantially within the second floor of the Property. On lower floors there was some damage caused by smoke and some damage was caused to the ceiling of the bedroom immediately below the bedroom in which the fire broke out by the water used by the fire brigade to extinguish the fire.
4. By a policy of insurance (“the Policy”) numbered PP8761690P01 dated 12 February 1999 and made between (1) Barclays Insurance Services Co. Ltd. (“Barclays”) as agent for Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd. (“Norwich Union”) and (2) Mr. Syed Uddin and Mr. Kamal Uddin Norwich Union agreed to hold the Property and the contents thereof covered in respect, amongst other things, of damage caused by fire. The Policy also provided cover in respect of “accidental loss or damage occurring anywhere in the world to Personal Possessions and Valuables” up to a sum of £12,500. The definition of “Valuables” for the purposes of the Policy included jewellery.
5. The General Conditions to which the Policy was subject included:-

“Insurers will act in good faith in all their dealings with you. Equally the payment of claims is dependent upon your own observance of the following:…

Your recognition of Insurer’s rights:…

(o) to refuse to pay you if any part of your claim is false.”

6. Mr. Syed Uddin and Mr. Kamal Uddin made a claim under the Policy in respect of the damage to the Property and to the contents thereof caused by the fire on 30 November 1999. Norwich Union has declined to pay that claim on account of the alleged fraud of Mr. Syed Uddin and other members of his family in respect of one part of the claim made, namely a claim in respect of the alleged costs of obtaining alternative accommodation for some members of the family, specifically, Mrs. Sapana Uddin, Kowsor, Kodduse, Lylee, Shaheda and Jhaheda between 6 December 1999 and 7 February 2000. The sum now claimed in respect of such costs is £4,200. Subject to the question whether any sum at all should be paid in respect of the claim under the Policy, agreement has been reached as to all elements in the claim save two. The first of those elements which are not agreed is the claim for the alleged cost of alternative accommodation. The second element which was not agreed was for a sum of £10,990 for jewellery which it was alleged was destroyed or damaged or disappeared in the fire or its aftermath.
7. Mr. Dijen Basu, who appeared on behalf of the Claimants at the trial, made clear in opening the case on behalf of the Claimants that their case was simply that jewellery which had been in the Property before the fire was not there afterwards. The Claimants were not able to say, said Mr. Basu, what had happened to the jewellery. The evidence of Mrs. Hamida Uddin at paragraph 3 of her witness statement dated 13 August 2001 was:-

“All of my jewellery had been stored in my bedroom where the fire started. Some of the jewellery was in the boxes which were handed to my husband [by fire officers].. Other items of jewellery had been left on top of the chest of drawers and bedside tables. The reason that some items of jewellery had been left out was because the day before the fire I had been to a party and had worn some of the jewellery. I had not put it away when the fire started.”

Mr. Basu accepted that there was no direct evidence of what precise items of jewellery had been lost or damaged or of the value of such jewellery, save in relation to what was referred to in the evidence as “ a set” comprising at least a necklace and a pair of earrings. I say “comprising at least a necklace and a pair of earrings” because at various times in her cross-examination Mrs. Hamida Uddin indicated that the necklace and earrings constituted the set, but she also said that the set included a pair of bangles. The evidence as to the value of the set of jewellery took the form of an invoice dated 8 August 1995 rendered by Ramesh Jewellers of Southall in the sum of £3,500. While the handwritten invoice is not altogether easy to read, it does refer to a long necklace with earrings and two bangles. Hereafter in this judgment I shall use the expression “the Set” to refer to the necklace, the earrings and the two bangles. The evidence of Mrs. Hamida Uddin, which I accept on this point, was that the Set was given to her by her husband on the occasion of their wedding. She showed me a photograph of herself wearing it. In the course of the trial Mr. Basu, pragmatically given the state of the evidence, limited the Claimants’ claim in respect of jewellery to the Set.

8. It was common ground at the trial that, in the event that I concluded that the Claimants had attempted to defraud Norwich Union by putting forward a dishonest claim in respect of the alleged costs of alternative accommodation, the effect of General Condition (o) of the General Conditions applicable to the Policy and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Orakpo v. Barclays Insurance Services [1995] LRLR 443 was that Norwich Union was relieved of any and all obligation to make a payment in respect of the loss suffered by the Claimants as a result of the fire at the Property on 30 November 1999. It was accepted by Mr. Oliver Ticciati, who appeared on behalf of Norwich Union, that if I were not satisfied that the Claimants had put forward a fraudulent head of claim in relation to the alleged costs of alternative accommodation, the Claimants were entitled to recover a sum of £49,000 which had been agreed in respect of the losses which had been sustained, other than the two elements which I have recorded were not agreed, plus whatever I decided was the true measure of any loss in relation to jewellery or in relation to the costs of alternative accommodation. In the event that the claim of the Claimants failed, Norwich Union counterclaimed the repayment of a sum of £5,000 which was paid to the Claimants in January 2000 on account of the claim the subject of this action before liability in respect of that claim was repudiated.

The evidence in relation to lost jewellery and alternative accommodation

9. Although in the event the claim of the Claimants in respect of lost jewellery was limited to the value of the Set, Mr. Ticciati sought to rely on what he contended was an originally exaggerated claim by the Claimants in respect of lost jewellery. It is therefore necessary in this judgment to consider how the claim in respect of lost jewellery has been put in the past, and the quality of the evidence in support of it, as well as the evidence relating specifically to the Set.
10. So far as the claim in respect of the alleged cost of alternative accommodation is concerned, Norwich Union’s case was that the Claimants incurred no costs whatever. Mr. Ticciati submitted that all the evidence upon which the Claimants sought to rely was fabricated with a view to supporting the alleged head of claim. In the nature of things Mr. Ticciati did not rely on much by way of a positive case. Insofar as Norwich Union had a positive case it depended upon evidence from witnesses to whom I shall refer later in this judgment which he submitted was inconsistent with the accounts given on behalf of the Claimants of the family members whom I have identified being in occupation of the property which it was alleged had been rented to accommodate them. However, the main thrust of Mr. Ticciati’s efforts was to attack the quality of the evidence adduced on behalf of the Claimants.
11. The Claimants’ case was that Mr. Kamal Uddin was absent in Bangladesh at the time of the fire. Certainly he did not give evidence before me and no evidence was led to the effect that Mr. Kamal Uddin had any involvement in the making of any arrangements for alternative accommodation or in occupying such accommodation. What was alleged was that Mr. Syed Uddin had arranged with Mr. Syed Zahid Zaidi for his sister-in-law, his two young brothers and his three sisters to occupy a house owned by Mr. Zaidi which was situate at 117, Whatley Avenue, Raynes Park, London SW20. I shall refer to that property in this judgment as “the Zaidi House”. It was not in dispute before me that the Zaidi House comprises a two storey end of terrace dwelling with three bedrooms on the upper floor. Of those three bedrooms, one, at the front, was of some size and contained a double bed. A second bedroom to the rear was not as large, but also contained a bed. Most of the evidence given before me was to the effect that the bed in question was a double bed, but Mr. Mark Hossack, to whose evidence I refer in more detail later in this judgment, told me that as at 23 February 2000 the bed in the second bedroom was a single bed. The third bedroom was described in evidence as a boxroom and contained, originally, a single bed. On the assumptions that there was a double bed in each of the larger bedrooms, that each double bed was occupied by two people and that the single bed was occupied by one person, there was thus sleeping accommodation in the Zaidi House for five people. The evidence of Mrs. Sapana Uddin and Miss Lylee Uddin was that Mrs. Sapana Uddin and Miss Jhaheda Uddin occupied the double bed in the front bedroom at the Zaidi House, Miss Lylee Uddin and Miss Shaheda Uddin occupied the second bedroom, and the two boys occupied the boxroom. On the undisputed evidence in relation to the Property after the fire, four bedrooms on the first floor were either wholly undamaged, other than by smoke, or had suffered only water damage to the ceiling. Four rooms on the ground floor of the Property were also undamaged other than by smoke. However, on the Claimants' case only Mr. Syed Uddin, his wife and young son remained in occupation of the Property in the period 6 December 1999 to 7 February 2000. It would seem that all of the usual occupiers of the Property remained in occupation of it in the period between the occurrence of the fire on 30 November 1999 and 6 December 1999. At least no positive evidence was led to the effect that anyone moved anywhere else for that period. Mr. Ian Hanley, a loss adjuster who gave evidence on behalf of Norwich Union, told me that he was told by Mr. Syed Uddin that Kowsor and Kodduse Uddin suffered from asthma and, as at about 1 December 1999, were staying with other, unidentified, members of the family. However, no evidence was led on behalf of the Claimants about that. It is possible that those who normally resided at 4, Benedict Road returned to live there. That might have been the natural thing to do, and on the evidence of Mr. Syed Uddin that is what happened after the alleged tenancy of the Zaidi House was given up on 7 February 2000. However, there was some evidence, to which I shall return later in this judgment, that for some part of the period between the occurrence of the fire and 7 February 2000 4, Benedict Road was either occupied by friends of the Uddin family or was let.
12. There was put before me a copy of what purported to be an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated 6 December 1999 by which Mr. Zaidi let the Zaidi House. In this judgment I shall refer to that tenancy agreement as “the Tenancy Agreement”. The Tenancy Agreement is, on its face, an unsatisfactory document. The person named in the Tenancy Agreement as “the Landlord” was Mr. Zaidi, but, for reasons which did not emerge in evidence, his first name was given as Zahid, which is in fact his second name. The persons named in the Tenancy Agreement as “the Tenant” were:-

“1. Master Kowsor Uddin

2. Miss Lylee Uddin

3. Miss Shaheda Uddin

4. Master Kodduse Uddin

5. Miss Jhaheda Uddin

6. Mrs. Sapana Uddin.”

Of these people only Mrs. Sapana Uddin was of full age. In a space in the Tenancy Agreement for the insertion of the name of “Guarantor” was written the name of Mr. Munaem Khan, whom Mr. Syed Uddin described to me in evidence as his uncle. Mr. Khan on the face of the Tenancy Agreement did sign it, but as witness to the signature of Mr. Zaidi, not as Guarantor. The tenancy to which the Tenancy Agreement purported to relate was said to start on 6 December 1999 and to continue “for a period of Three months ending on Could Be More”. The rent reserved by the Tenancy Agreement was expressed to be £1,400 per calendar month. The relevant part of the Tenancy Agreement went on:-

“The rent is payable in advance on the 6^th Dec day of each month/week…The first payment is due on the date of this Agreement.

The amount of the deposit is £3,000.00.”

By clause 1.4 of the Tenancy Agreement the Tenant agreed:-

“Outgoings

To pay all outgoings for the Property during the tenancy. Outgoings include Council Tax, standing charges and bills for gas, electricity, telephone, water and sewage disposal and any other services supplied to the Property.”

According to the evidence of Mr. Syed Uddin, Mr. Syed Zaidi and Mrs. Hamida Uddin, the handwriting in which gaps in the printed form of the Tenancy Agreement were completed was that of Mrs. Hamida Uddin. The evidence of Mr. Syed Uddin and Mr. Syed Zaidi was that the person who signed the Tenancy Agreement as “the Tenant” was Mr. Syed Uddin.

13. There was also put before me a copy of a rent book which purported to relate to the Zaidi House. That rent book was in a standard printed form and had been prepared for use in connection with “Protected and Statutory Tenancies”, as was indicated on the front cover. The rent book purported to record the receipt by Mr. Zaidi in cash of sums, respectively, of £3,000 on 6 December 1999, £1,400 on 6 January 2000 and £1,400 on 6 February 2000. There was some confusion in the evidence of Mr. Syed Uddin and that of Mr. Syed Zaidi as to in whose hand the entries in the rent book had been made. There were three signatures each of which was that of Mr. Zaidi. Mr. Uddin told me that the other writing in the rent book was Mr. Zaidi’s in the first line, and his own in the other two. Mr. Zaidi said that the writing in the first line was his, but he seemed uncertain whose handwriting appeared in the third line and he thought that the writing in the second line was his. This confusion seems odd. In the ordinary way if there is a rent book the tenant keeps the book and the landlord makes the entries in it. Even if a different system operated as between Mr. Uddin and Mr. Zaidi, one would expect them to remember what it was.
14. After the fire Norwich Union appointed loss adjusters, Cunningham Ellis and Buckle (“CEB”) to act on its behalf in adjusting the claim of the Messrs. Uddin. Mr. Syed Uddin wrote a letter dated 30 January 2000 to Mr. Kevin Drain at CEB which included the following:-

“I would also like to point out to you, that the gold, we had in question was in the room and we have not seen any of it. There were many people coming and going to the burnt floor to see the damage while all the lights were still switched off at the mains, until the engineer came to fix it. Therefore we believe that anything could have happened…

I have rented a house for four months, I have paid two months rent, which is one month running, and one month advanced - £3000.00, for the property we are living at. I have also paid rent for December and January, which is £1400.00, hoping all will be organised by then. If not, I have to organise for another two to three months.”

In a list of items of claim which followed in the letter the sum claimed as “Four months rent” was £5,600. The letter was written just a week before, on his account, the members of Mr. Syed Uddin’s family who had lived at the Zaidi House left it. On his account, Mr. Syed Uddin paid Mr. Zaidi rent of £1,400 the day before his family vacated the Zaidi House. He said to me in evidence that in consideration of the making of that payment Mr. Zaidi waived the requirement that Mr. Syed Uddin should perform the covenant in clause 1.4 of the Tenancy Agreement that he discharge the outgoings relating to the period of occupation of the Zaidi House by members of Mr. Syed Uddin’s family. Certainly Mr. Syed Uddin accepted that he had not discharged any outgoings. At the end of the letter dated 30 January 2000 to Mr. Drain Mr. Syed Uddin explained his delay in replying to a request from Mr. Drain for information as to his claim as follows:-

“The reason I have delayed to reply the [word obliterated by punched hole] list is because I was severely ill and moving from one house to the other.”

In cross-examination Mr. Uddin explained that, contrary to what one might think from the terms of the letter, it was not him who had been moving, but those members of his family who lived on a temporary basis at the Zaidi House.

15. The account of matters concerning the renting of the Zaidi House given by Mr. Syed Uddin in his letter dated 30 January 2000 to Mr. Drain was, on his present case, in certain respects untrue. He had not rented the Zaidi House for four months, but only for three, with a possibility of an extension. He had not paid, and was not liable to pay, a total sum of £5,600. Contrary to the impression created by using the expression “the property we are living at”, Mr. Uddin does not now contend that he personally ever resided at the Zaidi House. The indication of how much he had paid was confused and misleading, because on his present case by 30 January 2000 he had paid a sum of £3,000 representing one month’s rent in advance and a deposit of £1,600 on 6 December 1999 and a further £1,400 by way of rent on 6 January 2000.
16. Norwich Union and CEB became concerned with the question whether Mr. Syed Uddin was acting in good faith in formulating the insurance claim following the fire at the Property. Investigations were entrusted to Mr. Graham Russell-Price. Mr. Russell-Price corresponded with Mr. Syed Uddin about various issues of interest to Mr. Russell-Price. He also visited Mr. Syed Uddin on a couple of occasions. Then, on 14 March 2000 Mr. Russell-Price visited Mr. Uddin and took a statement from him. Mr. Uddin made alterations to the statement as drafted, signed it in the presence of a witness, a Mr. Rahman, and returned it to Mr. Russell-Price under cover of a letter dated 31 March 2000. That statement included the following:-

“That evening [that is, the evening of the fire] I rang my builder Mr. Sharif. He had just completed about £17,000 worth of work at 134 London Road [another property owned by Mr. Uddin]. He came that evening and made things safe. He returned the next day but only did a few bits.

That day Mr. Hanley [of CEB] came and saw all the damage and told me I could clean up as Chem Dry who he had contacted suggested a price for cleaning up at about £1,000. Mr. Sharif would do it for £600 – that’s what I told Mr. Hanley so he told me to go ahead. A day or so later Mr. Sharif returned and cleaned everything up. Mr. Hanley returned for a second visit but that was before we cleaned anything. Mr. Sharif then sent his invoice to me. He did – he did hand me the invoice at the time of his coming to give an estimate [for repair of the damage to the second floor of the Property]. I paid him as soon as he gave me the invoice. I paid him cash having withdrawn £3,000 in my gold card. I wrote “Paid by cash” on the invoice.

At my request Mr. Sharif gave the name of a surveyor Mr. Mike of 20/4 Associates Ltd. Before I paid Sharif I gave Mr. Mike a £300 cheque to start the work this was 13 January 2000 cheque No. 100115. The first payment was £500 20.12.99 cheque No. 100106 to 20/4 Associates. Mr. Mike had spoken to the surveyor from Cunningham Ellis & Buckle. I can’t remember his name but he visited after Mr. Hanley. He had agreed with Mr. Mike 12% fees. Mr. Mike gave me two copies of the specification which I passed to Mr. Sharif – one and the other to Mr. Johnson. I posted the one to Mr. Johnson and the other I personally gave it to Mr. Sharif as I was seeing him for 134, London Road. I wrote on my unpriced copy the figures Mr. Sharif had put down. Mr. Johnson had done some work for a friend of mine Mr. Motin who has restaurants in Mitcham and Tooting. I received Mr. Johnson’s cost and I sent that with Mr. Sharif’s to Mr. Mike. I sent these to Mr. Mike one weekend. I remember Mr. Johnson’s price of £44,000 plus VAT and Mr. Sharif’s is £33,000 + VAT.

After the fire we moved to 117, Watley Avenue as tenants of Mr. Zaidi of 29 Belgrove Close, Mitcham 0181 543 1261. I have paid him £1,400 per month two payments plus £3,000 deposit. We moved in 6^th December and moved out 7^th February. There were tenants in No. 4 Benedict. Some of them are now in 29 and some in 117 but with them out of No. 4 I have moved into No. 4 with my family. 117 is now for sale. I signed a tenancy agreement and give it to him.”

I shall return to the relevance to the issues which I have to decide of the alleged payment to Mr. Sharif out of a sum of £3,000 withdrawn by Mr. Uddin on his Gold Card. I shall also need to return to the question of the occupation of 4, Benedict Road. For the present it is material only to notice that, while the most natural interpretation of the reference to “We” might appear to be to a group including Mr. Syed Uddin himself, his evidence was that he intended, in using the word, only to refer to a group of family members which did not include himself.

17. The withdrawal of the sum of £3,000 by use of a Gold Card was evidenced by two documents which were put before me. The first was a voucher dated 8 December 1999 which showed that the sum of £3,000 had been withdrawn from the Mitcham branch of HSBC Bank Plc by Mrs. Hamida Uddin by using a card numbered 5434 5801 0187 8813. The name of Mrs. Uddin appeared on the card of which details were imprinted on the voucher. The second of the two documents was a statement issued by HSBC Bank Plc called a “Gold MasterCard Statement” dated 10 January 2000, relating to a card numbered 5434 5801 0187 8813, and recording the withdrawal of the sum of £3,000, of which withdrawal details were received by HSBC Bank Plc on 13 December 1999. The statement was addressed to Mr. Syed Uddin. Mrs. Hamida Uddin told me that she was an authorised user of her husband’s credit card and that she had withdrawn the sum of £3,000 at her husband’s request and had given it to him.
18. There was also put in evidence a copy of a statement dated 25 February 2000 addressed by NatWest to Mr. Syed Uddin in relation to a MasterCard numbered 5435 5737 5406 2891. That statement showed that a cash advance of a sum of £2,000 had been made against the card on 5 February 2000 at the Upper Green, Mitcham branch of NatWest bank.
19. Another document of which a copy was put in evidence was an invoice dated 9 December 1999 rendered by Sharif Associates to Mr. Uddin in relation to works carried out at the Property. The narrative of the invoice gave the following details:-

“Emergency call out for work carried out, due to Fire.

Checked Electrical works and make safe all.

Checked water, Gas, Radiator, and repair radiator.

Fitted new door to protect bad smell entering bottom floors.

To Clear all damaged debris and clear all ashes & heavy articles from 2 Bedrooms, Bathroom, Dressing Room, Attic, Passage. ”

Mr. Syed Uddin told me in cross-examination that this invoice, which was endorsed “Paid by cash 10/12/99”, was the invoice referred to in the statement which he gave to Mr. Russell-Price as having been paid out of a sum of £3,000 withdrawn on his gold card.

20. In his witness statement dated 13 August 2001 prepared for the purposes of this action Mr. Syed Uddin gave this account of the making of arrangements to rent the Zaidi House and of what happened thereafter:-

“4. I made inquiries with some local friends as to whether they were aware of any properties available to rent. Mr. Majid Zaidi, a neighbour of mine informed me that his brother had a property which may be available. Mr. Zaidi contacted his brother, Syed Zaidi and I met with him. Syed Zaidi offered to rent his property at 117 Whatley Avenue to me on a three-month term which I agreed to and the rest of the terms are set out in the Tenancy Agreement dated 6 December 1999. The main attraction about renting the property from Mr. Zaidi was that he was willing to rent it to me for only three months. Most other properties were only available for a minimum of 6 months. I borrowed some money from friends in order to pay the deposit and rent and also for some other general expenses as a result of the losses I suffered in the fire. Later on I took out money from the bank in order to pay back the money to my friends.

5. On 4^th or 5^th Dec 1999 I borrowed a total of £3,000 from two friends. I have attached copies of letters from them confirming this to my statement. The purpose of borrowing this money was to pay the deposit and first month’s rent to Mr. Zaidi on the Monday 6 Dec 1999. I did not have time to go to the bank to take the money out. I did however withdraw £3000 from the bank on the 8^th Dec 1999 and use this money to pay back my two friends. I paid £1400 in respect of rent to Mr. Zaidi at the beginning of January as well, and this money came from my family takeaway restaurant business. In February I withdrew £2000 from my bank and paid £1400 from this money to Mr. Zaidi in respect of that month’s rent. After my family left the property Mr. Zaidi paid back to me £1600 representing the deposit. All of the payments were made in cash.

6. Once the agreement was completed the six named members of the family on the agreement moved into the property. They in fact spent very little time at the property and really only used it to sleep. The rest of the time the children were either at school or would spend time at the family home with the rest of the family. Only myself, my wife and son remained at the family home. My parents, who own 4 Benedict Road next door to the family home were away in Bangladesh at the time. However, they had some friends staying at their house at the time of the fire and there was therefore not enough space for any of the other family members to move in to that house.

7. The six members of the family resided at Mr. Zaidi’s property for a period of approximately two months, and after this time they returned to the family home. The main reason for this, was that it was becoming inconvenient as they were in fact spending the majority of their time at the family home in any event. It was therefore decided that they would all move back to the family home despite the fact that it was overcrowded. However, in addition, the friends at my parents’ house had left by this time and so some additional room became available. This slightly eased the congestion although since then members of my family from Bangladesh have returned and both properties are somewhat overcrowded.

8. My solicitor informs me that my insurance company believes that another tenant lived at Mr. Zaidi’s property during the period that my family were living there. As far as I am aware, nobody else resided at the property during my family’s occupation there, not even Mr. Zaidi as he was living at his brother’s place at the time. I am aware that Mr. Zaidi would return to the property during the day and in the evenings sometimes in order to collect post and make telephone calls .. but at no stage did he actually live at the property during my family’s occupation.

9.With reference to the list of items in these proceedings I confirm that it accurately shows which items were damaged in the fire and their values. There are also photographs of the damage to the property and some of the items.”

21. In cross-examination Mr. Syed Uddin told me that the reason why he borrowed a total of £3,000 from friends rather than going and withdrawing money from his bank to pay a deposit and rent in advance to Mr. Zaidi was that, contrary to the impression created by what he said in paragraph 5 of his witness statement, he needed to raise the money urgently after banking hours on 6 December 1999. That came about because it was only on 6 December 1999 itself that the possibility of moving some members of his family into the Zaidi House arose. Mr. Syed Uddin’s account in cross-examination was that on 6 December 1999 Mr. Majid Zaidi told him that Mr. Majid Zaidi’s brother, Mr. Syed Zaidi, might have a place in which some members of Mr. Syed Uddin’s family could stay. The same day he, Mr. Syed Uddin, met Mr. Syed Zaidi at about midday at the house of Mr. Majid Zaidi. Mr. Syed Uddin enquired about the rent which Mr. Syed Zaidi would require for his house and was told £1,400 per month. Mr. Syed Uddin then asked if he could see the Zaidi House. Mr. Syed Zaidi said that he could see it then if he wished, but because of other commitments Mr. Syed Uddin was unable to go until the early evening after those of his siblings who were attending school had been collected from their respective educational establishments. Then Mr. Syed Uddin, his wife and his uncle, Mr. Munaem Khan, visited the Zaidi House. Mr. and Mrs. Uddin liked the house and asked if they could move the relevant members of the family in that day. Mr. Syed Zaidi was agreeable provided that the Tenancy Agreement was signed and a sum of £3,000 was paid. That sum was said to represent one month’s rent of £1,400 in advance plus a deposit of £1,600. Mr. Uddin said that the amount of the deposit was calculated as one month’s rent plus a sum of £200 as security against unpaid utility bills. In his cross-examination Mr. Syed Zaidi said that the blank form of Tenancy Agreement was brought to the Zaidi House by Mr. and Mrs. Uddin. Mrs. Hamida Uddin in her evidence said that it was Mr. Zaidi who had provided it. That would seem more natural, so Mr. Zaidi’s evidence to the contrary is the more striking.
22. The copies of letters referred to in Mr. Syed Uddin’s witness statement as being attached were a letter dated 8 September 2000 written by a Mr. S.A. Miah, who apparently trades as “Ramna Green” at an address in Merton High Street, London SW19, and a letter dated 11 September 2000 written by a Mr. M.S. Bhatti, who apparently trades as “Ram Darshan Video Convenient Store” at an address in Cambridge Road, Kingston-on-Thames. In his letter Mr. Miah said, so far as is presently material:-

“I would like to confirm that I gave a [word illegible] of £1500 to MR. SAJID UDDIN on the first week of December 1999. He also borrowed more money the following month.”

Mr. Bhatti’s letter was in the following terms:-

“This is to confirm that MR SYED SAJID UDDIN borrowed £15..00 pounds from me in the first week of December 1999. He is a very genuine and trustworthy friend, we usually borrow money from each other.”

It is obviously unfortunate that what may be an important word in Mr. Miah’s letter is illegible. It is the more unfortunate because Mr. Miah was not called to give evidence and so had no opportunity to elucidate, or to explain why he referred in his letter to “MR. SAJID UDDIN”, rather than to Mr. Syed Uddin. Sajid is, of course, Mr. Syed Uddin’s second name. It is also regrettable that Mr. Bhatti’s letter seems, from how the amount mentioned in it has been rendered, as likely to refer to a loan of fifteen pounds as to a loan of one thousand five hundred pounds. I do not attribute any particular significance to the matters which I have mentioned concerning these letters beyond that there seems to be something of a pattern of unsatisfactory documentation relied on on behalf of the Claimants. I notice, but again I do not attribute any particular significance to it, that neither Mr. Miah nor Mr. Bhatti comments that he was repaid within a matter of, on Mr. Syed Uddin’s present case, a few days. At one stage in correspondence the Claimants’ solicitors, Messrs. Pearson Maddin, asserted that repayment had been made on 8 December 1999.

23. Mr. Syed Uddin told me in cross-examination that he paid the final amount of rent on 6 February 2000 at a time before he knew that the occupiers of his parents’ house were intending to leave the next day. Some hours later, he said, and his account was supported by that given by Mr. Syed Zaidi in cross-examination, he did learn of the imminent departure of those occupiers, and he told Mr. Zaidi that the members of the Uddin family in the Zaidi House would leave the next day. It was then agreed, so Mr. Uddin and Mr. Zaidi told me, that Mr. Zaidi would keep the whole of the month’s rent that he had just been paid, but he would not seek payment from Mr. Uddin in respect of outgoings for the Zaidi House over the period for which members of the Uddin family had been in occupation. Nothing was apparently then said about repayment by Mr. Zaidi of the deposit. Mr. Uddin’s evidence was that the deposit was repaid some weeks later.
24. It is apparent from what I have set out already in this judgment that Mr. Syed Uddin has given rather different accounts on different occasions of matters relevant to the arrangements allegedly made for members of his family to be accommodated at the Zaidi House. Whatever his later accounts, a fair reading of what he said in his letter dated 30 January 2000 to Mr. Drain was certainly calculated to create the impression that he was saying that he himself, as well as other members of his family, had removed to the Zaidi House. While he now says that he borrowed a total of £3,000 on 6 December 1999, in his witness statement dated 13 August 2001 he said that he borrowed it on 4 or 5 December 1999. In his witness statement Mr. Uddin did not attempt to grapple with the illogicality of borrowing £3,000 a day or two in advance of when, according to him, he needed it, and repaying the loans only three or four days later, rather than simply withdrawing the money from the bank on 4, 5 or during banking hours on 6 December 1999, if funds were readily available to him. It also seems somewhat strange that, on the logic of his present account, he had no time to call at his bank on 6 December 1999, but did have time to collect cash from persons based, respectively, in Merton and Kingston-on-Thames. The sum of £3,000 which he now says was withdrawn in order to repay Mr. Miah and Mr. Bhatti he had previously told Mr. Russell-Price in the statement taken on 14 March 2000 had been used in part to settle Mr. Sharif’s invoice dated 9 December 1999. The money was insufficient in amount to have been used for both purposes. In his statement to Mr. Russell-Price Mr. Uddin said that he (referring to himself in the statement as “I”) had moved with his family into his parents’ house at 4, Benedict Road, whereas he now says that he always lived in the Property. Those who had been in occupation of Mr. Uddin’s parents’ house, described in his witness statement dated 13 August 2001 as “friends” were described in his statement to Mr. Russell-Price as “tenants”. In cross-examination Mr. Uddin reverted to the story that the persons in question were renting his parents’ house. Rather curiously in his statement to Mr. Russell-Price Mr. Uddin indicated that those persons, whomsoever they in fact may have been, had removed from 4, Benedict Road either to the Zaidi House or to the house of Mr. Majid Zaidi. One wonders why, had that account been true, they had not removed themselves as soon as it became apparent that Mr. Syed Zaidi was prepared to make the Zaidi House available for occupation by others. Mr. Uddin professed to be unable to recall precisely when Mr. Zaidi had repaid the alleged deposit of £1,600, although he asserted that repayment had been made. One might have expected that, even if it had been agreed that Mr. Zaidi could keep the third month’s rent against outgoings and so forth, the sum of £1,400 allegedly paid just hours, on the evidence of Mr. Uddin and Mr. Zaidi, before Mr. Uddin announced the imminent departure of his family members from the Zaidi House would have been available for an instant repayment of the bulk of the deposit, but apparently no payment was then made. In the light of all these inconsistencies and illogicalities I would be quite unable to accept as truthful Mr. Syed Uddin’s account of obtaining alternative accommodation at the Zaidi House or of the arrangements made in connection with the obtaining of such accommodation, even if Mr. Syed Uddin had impressed me as to the manner in which he gave his evidence. In fact, however, the concerns which I had in considering simply the inconsistencies and illogicalities to which I have referred were simply exacerbated by the manner in which Mr. Uddin gave his evidence. He seemed to me deliberately to misunderstand questions and to embark on long and involved answers to matters which in my judgment he understood perfectly well he was not being asked about. He also had difficulty which no other witness in the trial seemed to have to the same extent in finding his place in the trial bundles. He did not always find it easy to read or to understand documents of which he was himself the author. He professed to have no, or a very limited, recollection of a number of important matters, such as when exactly he had repaid the loans which he contended had been made to him or out of what funds. All of these apparent problems, it seemed to me, were devices either to give him more time to concoct an answer or to seek to divert attention away from some matter which he found difficult to deal with. I am satisfied that Mr. Syed Uddin deliberately lied in the witness box. The telling of untruths can only have been in support of a dishonest case that he had incurred expense in obtaining alternative accommodation for members of his family after the fire at the Property on 30 November 1999. There would be no other reason to do it. If, as I find, the case that Mr. Syed Uddin had incurred expense in obtaining alternative accommodation for members of his family was dishonest, it must follow that all of the evidence led in support of that case was untrue and that those giving it had conspired together to defraud Norwich Union. It may not strictly be necessary in those circumstances for me to consider the other evidence given on behalf of the Claimants in support of the case as to alternative accommodation. However, some of that evidence was itself, in my judgment unsatisfactory in ways which support my conclusion, and to that evidence I shall refer. Mr. Uddin himself did not really deal with the issue of the loss of the Set, beyond saying in general terms that gold jewellery which had been in the Property before the fire had gone missing. Consequently, I should consider the evidence as to the missing jewellery.
25. Mr. Syed Zaidi gave evidence which was broadly to the same effect as the account which Mr. Syed Uddin gave at trial. However, Mr. Zaidi suffered from the considerable disadvantage, for someone putting himself forward as a witness of honesty and truth, that he is a self-confessed liar. Mr. Zaidi accepted in cross-examination that, during the course of his investigations on behalf of Norwich Union, Mr. Russell-Price had called to see Mr. Zaidi. Mr. Russell-Price told me, and I accept, that the date of the visit was 18 May 2000. That was just over three months after, on the account of Mr. Syed Uddin and Mr. Zaidi, the members of the Uddin family who had stayed at the Zaidi House had left. Mr. Russell-Price made a typed note of his interview with Mr. Zaidi the day after it occurred, based on manuscript notes made immediately after the interview. Copies of both notes were put in evidence. I am satisfied that the notes are accurate records of that which they contain. The lie which Mr. Zaidi admitted was that in response to a question from Mr. Russell-Price whether the Zaidi House had ever been tenanted he said no. That that answer was on any view untrue is undoubted, for a room in the Zaidi House had been let to a Mr. Andrew Bailey, of whom more later. Mr. Zaidi said in cross-examination that the reason why he had lied was that he feared that Mr. Russell-Price was something to do with the Land Registry or with the local authority and was making enquiries in connection with liability to pay Council Tax, or was something to do with Mr. Zaidi’s mortgagees and was interested in possible breach of the terms of the mortgage agreement by letting out rooms. Mr. Zaidi also said that he lied in order to protect his privacy. None of these explanations, if true, as to which I have the gravest reservations, is a justification for deliberate falsehood. A man who will lie in order to seek to protect his economic interests is, in my judgment, a man who will lie whenever he sees advantage in it. Mr. Zaidi sought to avoid that not very adventurous analysis by saying that he had not been on oath when he was speaking to Mr. Russell-Price. That is undoubtedly so. However, from seeing how Mr. Zaidi gave his evidence I am satisfied that, most regrettably, he, and, indeed, the others who gave evidence on behalf of the Claimants, are persons to whom the oath is of no significance. I do not need to be concerned with what motivation Mr. Zaidi might have for giving false evidence. It is enough that I am satisfied that he would give false evidence on oath if he thought it was in his interests, and whatever precisely are the interests which he considers have been served by him giving false evidence before me, that is what he has done.
26. A telling part of the note made by Mr. Russell-Price of his interview with Mr. Zaidi was in the following terms:-

“I left at 4.27 and returned to my car where I started to write this note. I was about to return to clarify when in 1999 he [that is, Mr. Zaidi] purchased the property when Mr. Zaidi, barefoot, approached my car. He said he had rented the property out for 2 months, February or March this year. I asked him then and although he was hesitant said about February/March he couldn’t quite recall. He however was quite definite that it was this year. He went on to explain it was a poor chap who had had a fire and it was a friend of his, a Mr. S.S. Uddin…”

When that part of the note was put to him, Mr. Zaidi accepted that he had indeed gone out to Mr. Russell-Price’s car and had told him that he had let the Zaidi House to Mr. Uddin. He said that he had done so because at the end of the interview earlier Mr. Russell-Price had given him a business card which described Mr. Russell-Price as a loss adjuster. Mr. Zaidi did not know what a loss adjuster did and he had shown the business card to a friend who was in the Zaidi House at the time. This friend had said that a loss adjuster was something to do with insurance. Mr. Zaidi told me that he then realised that Mr. Russell-Price’s visit was related to the occupation of the Zaidi House by members of the Uddin family. At that point he decided to give what he contended was correct information as to the tenancy of the Uddin family. Why precisely he was motivated at that point to disclose limited material about the letting of the Zaidi House he did not really explain. However, he was adamant in his evidence to me that he told Mr. Russell-Price that the Uddins had been in the Zaidi House in December and January, not in February/March. I understood Mr. Zaidi at one point in his cross-examination to be suggesting that Mr. Russell-Price had deliberately misrecorded the dates which he had been given. When Mr. Ticciati phrased a question on the hypothesis that that was indeed what Mr. Zaidi had said, Mr. Basu rose to object that his, Mr. Basu’s, understanding of what Mr. Zaidi had suggested was different, namely that Mr. Russell-Price had simply made a mistake in what he wrote down. At that point Mr. Zaidi assented to what Mr. Basu suggested he had said. Whether or not there was genuine misunderstanding of Mr. Zaidi’s evidence at this juncture, I reject the notion that Mr. Russell-Price made a mistake when making his manuscript note of the dates. That manuscript note is accurately transcribed in the typed version. I find that Mr. Zaidi did in fact tell Mr. Russell-Price that Mr. Uddin had been his tenant in February and March 2000. The reason he mentioned those dates, which were only a matter of weeks before the interview, rather than the dates which he now contends were the correct ones, was simply, in my judgment, that Mr. Zaidi was not then on top of the plot of the story as it has been told to me.

27. Another person whom Mr. Russell-Price saw in the course of his investigations was the Andrew Bailey whose name I have already mentioned. Mr. Bailey gave Mr. Russell-Price a statement which in the typed version was signed by Mr. Bailey and dated 18 August 2000. Mr. Bailey also gave Mr. Russell-Price a number of documents, to which I shall refer later in this judgment, in support of the account which was set out in the statement. The text of the statement was as follows:-

“I am Andrew Bailey and have been employed by Ladbrokes Casinos as a Croupier and for the last three years as an inspector. I have a yellow gaming certificate. On the 22 August 1999 I gave Mr. Zaidi (Wuzzy) the deposit for my moving into 117 Whatley Avenue with my then fiancee Hye Young. We moved from 22 Acacia Grove and into 117 at the beginning of September.

I had seen the advert for 117 either from a local shop window or on-line Loot [a periodical], I can’t remember now. There was already a Spanish girl who was renting the box room and Wuzzy said that he wouldn’t be living there which suited us but he was going to arrange for someone else to move into the big back room.

Our rent was £90 per week although it was advertised at £75 but that was for one person. He agreed we could both stay for £90.

I told him I needed a telephone. There were two lines there already. I used one and he used the other. I think I had to contact B.T. to get a box put into our bedroom. He used cable a lot as the calls to Pakistan were cheaper. He then gave me the use of 543 5004. I offered it to be put into my name but he said I might as well leave it. I felt he didn’t want a bill to the house in my name.

He hadn’t moved in at that time but went to Pakistan, that’s where he said he was going, for two weeks. He returned and moved into the back bedroom now with his girlfriend, Alona Zawadda. It was to her I gave our deposit. I think she wrote the receipt (Exhibit AGB1) and he may have countersigned it later. Alona was actually living in the back bedroom. And Wuzzy came back and moved in.

The Spanish girl then moved out after may be a month. I think her name may have been Sabina or something. Soon after a Spanish speaking guy moved in. He might have been Brazilian. He was from that part of the world. He hardly spoke any English. He had a rich English girlfriend but she never stayed there. Wuzzy did most of his rent dealings with her.

After he left a Thai guy moved into the box room. He worked in the kitchen, I think, of a Thai restaurant in Wimbledon.

About November time Alona’s friend came to stay. They worked with each other. She lived down stairs and kept the fire on a lot. Alona went back to Poland for Christmas and her friend stayed a further two weeks after Alona’s return.

The Thai guy was persuaded by Wuzzy to leave. I don’t think, in Wuzzy’s eyes, he was a very good tenant. Alona’s friend moved into the box room after the Thai guy left. She was there only a short time. When she left, the box room remained empty. Although Wuzzy had maybe his brother or cousin stay for a time. We had a weeks holiday in Portugal in November and I think Wuzzy’s brother or cousin stayed that week.

Although a Chinese and a Korean girl came looking at the box room on separate occasions, they didn’t take up the room and it remained empty for I’d say, the last three months of our tenancy.

Wuzzy and Alona in the back room and Hey Young and me in the front room. No one apart from the people mentioned lived there. Certainly there were no young children living there during our time there or a Pakistani woman or anyone from that part of Asia.

Our rent was paid at first once every two weeks and later once a week with the 2 weeks deposit in advance. Coming up to our six months of being there we found somewhere else as I had now passed my driving test. Hey Young was in Korea for a little while. I agreed with Wuzzy that I would move out at the end of the month, a Monday which was my day off work. We moved on 27 March.

I had my mail redirected from 22 Acacia to 117 and then from 117 to here although most of the last change I organized in advance. All the major things.

Wuzzy had wanted an e-mail address on Hot mail. Using my computer I tried to log an address for him but found Wuzzy Zaidi had already been taken. He then asked me to try Ahad Hussain which was also taken and I think we settled on another name.

A Chinese girl and an English boy moved in immediately. Wuzzy and they thought we were moving out on the Sunday so they had to be put off. We moved out in the morning and on returning to collect the car, having used a hire van to move belongings, they were already in our old room. They were a young couple. I don’t know their name.

I have provided bills and documents in support of my residence at 117. (Exhibits AGW2 – 12 see list attached). I confirm my driving licence and our wedding certificate also had that address on them.”

28. The exhibits referred to in the statement given by Mr. Bailey to Mr. Russell-Price were:-

(i) a receipt dated 22 August 1999 initialled by Mr. Zaidi for a sum of £180;

(ii) a schedule to a policy of contents insurance showing the address of the Zaidi House and an effective date of 2 September 1999;

(iii) a schedule of credit cards in connection with a card protection scheme showing the address of the Zaidi House and an effective date of 3 September 1999;

(iv)a letter dated 19 November 1999 written to Mr. Bailey at the Zaidi House in relation to a career development loan;

(v) a telephone bill dated 11 November 1999 addressed to a Mr. Nadeem Khan at the Zaidi House and relating to the installation of a telephone line with the number 0181 543 5004 and rental of that line for a period ending on 31 January 2000;

(vi) a document recording a modification dated 30 December 1999 to a motor insurance policy which appeared to have been arranged with effect from 30 November 1999 and which showed the address of Mr. Bailey as the Zaidi House;

(vii) statements dated, respectively, 24 September 1999, 26 October 1999, 24 November 1999, 23 December 1999, 26 January 2000 and 24 February 2000 addressed to Mr. Bailey at the Zaidi House in relation to a Lloyds TSB MasterCard numbered 5404 6312 2079 7693: the January statement appeared to show three separate purchases from the New Malden branch of Tesco on 10 January 2000.

The documents to which I have referred seem, on their face, to provide corroborative evidence of what Mr. Bailey told Mr. Russell-Price about the dates of his occupation of the front bedroom at the Zaidi House.

29. Notwithstanding what Mr. Bailey had said to Mr. Russell-Price in the statement which he gave to him, Mr. Bailey subsequently gave two statements to the solicitors acting on behalf of the Claimants. In the first of those statements, which was dated 7 August 2001, Mr. Bailey said that he had left the Zaidi House in November 1999, but that, after he had left, Mr. Zaidi had let him continue to use the address of the Zaidi House as a postal address. The address to which Mr. Bailey ultimately moved was in Dartford, Kent. In the statement dated 7 August 2001 Mr. Bailey gave an account of his interview with Mr. Russell-Price which was as follows:-

“3. In about March or April 2000 I received a telephone call from a Mr. Graham Russell Price. He spoke very quickly and I do not remember him telling me the nature of his enquiry. He simply launched into some questions about my last known address. I automatically thought that this was to do with my loan application or Green Card application or something else of that nature and therefore panicked. He asked me to meet him and I believe that was on the same day as the telephone call. He came to visit me at the property where I was living at the time in Kent. When he came over he again did not say where he was from or what the nature of his enquiry was but I was extremely concerned because on my previous applications I had indicated that I was living at Mr. Zaidi’s property and I told him that I lived there until very recently and that I had just moved to my current address. This was not actually true as I did in fact leave Mr. Zaidi’s property in November 1999. For a period of two or three months after that I was living with various friends and at the time of my meeting with Mr. Russell Price I had only recently moved to the property in Kent. However, I did not tell him this and instead told him that I had been living at Mr. Zaidi’s property the whole time.

4. One of the other things that occurred to me when Mr. Russell Price was at my property was that he may have been from the letting agency through who I was renting the Kent property. I knew that Mr. Zaidi had recently given me a reference for the purposes of renting the Kent property and the letting agency were particularly strict about the length of time I had previously spent at a particular property. I had told them that I had been at Mr. Zaidi’s property for about six months in order to ensure that I secured the property. This was of course not true. Mr. Russell Price then went on to ask me whether I had any evidence to show that I had been living at Mr. Zaidi’s property and this panicked me even further. I therefore supplied him with various bills and statements that were address [sic] to me at 117 Watley [sic] Avenue. The reality was that whilst this correspondence was addressed to me at the property I was not actually living there at the time. Mr. Russell Price asked if he could take the documents so he could take copies and then send the originals back to me. I agreed that he could do this. During the meeting he was taking notes and then asked me to sign a statement at the end which I did.

5. About one week after my initial meeting with Mr. Russell Price he telephoned me again and asked if he could come over as some amendments to the statement were required. I agreed and he came over to my property again. I read the statement quickly and signed it. I wanted him to leave quickly as again he made me very nervous and worried about my applications. After he left I became increasingly concerned because it was only at that stage that I realised he had not explained to me properly what the purpose of the statement was for.

6. Over the next few months I spoke to Mr. Zaidi on occasion who informed me about Mr. Uddin’s claim against his insurance company and the issues relating to his family living at Mr. Zaidi’s property. It was at this stage that I finally realised why Mr. Russell Price had come to visit me and taken a statement. I was relieved to know that it was nothing to do with my applications, but was also a little embarrassed about the lies I had told. For this reason, I did not tell Mr. Zaidi the details of what I had told Mr. Russell Price as I hoped the matter would simply go away. A few months later I received a telephone call from Mr. Russell Price who told me that the other side were saying various things about me. I did of course know by this time that none of this was anything to do with my applications, so I told him on the telephone that I did not want anything further to do with the matter. He asked if I was sure and I said that I was so he did not ask me any further questions.

7. At no stage during any of the contact with Mr. Russell Price did he ever tell me what the purpose of his enquiries were. With hindsight, I suppose I should have enquired further but simply panicked as I knew that I had claimed to be living at Mr. Zaidi’s property when really I had not. Mr. Russell Price certainly did not tell me that this was anything to do with any Court proceedings and never told me that there was any possibility that I would have to attend Court. Had I known at the time what the matter was about I would have been truthful as I knew that it would not have any detrimental effect on the applications I had made. With regard to the statement I gave to Mr. Russell Price, I can confirm that it is not accurate and I therefore wish to withdraw it. ”

30. Mr. Bailey’s second statement to the Claimants’ solicitors, dated 22 September 2001, was concerned to comment on various points arising from the witness statement made by Mr. Russell-Price for the purposes of this action.
31. It is immediately apparent, and was recognised by Mr. Bailey in his statement dated 7 August 2001, that the account given in that statement was completely different from the account given in the statement which he gave to Mr. Russell-Price. Mr. Bailey also appreciated that the effect of the statement dated 7 August 2001 was that he had lied to Mr. Russell-Price. That Mr. Bailey is a liar and a thoroughly dishonest man, there is, in my judgment, no doubt. Probably because he appreciated that the assistance to the Claimants’ case to be derived from calling him was limited, Mr. Basu elected not to call Mr. Bailey as a witness on behalf of the Claimants. Mr. Bailey was, however, required to attend Court by a witness summons issued on behalf of Norwich Union, and he was called by Mr. Ticciati. I acceded to an application on behalf of Norwich Union for Mr. Bailey to be treated as a hostile witness.
32. Mr. Russell-Price had some difficulty in making contact with Mr. Bailey. It seems that at least two out of three letters written to Mr. Bailey at the Zaidi House did not reach him, because they were returned through the post. In the first of the letters sent to Mr. Bailey Mr. Russell-Price had explained exactly why he wished to see Mr. Bailey. That letter was not, it appears, returned through the post. At all events, after he had been successful in interviewing Mr. Bailey and in taking a handwritten statement from him, Mr. Russell-Price wrote a letter dated 16 August 2000 to Mr. Bailey at his address in Dartford under cover of which he sent a typed version of the statement. The letter included the following:-

“I enclose a copy of the hand written statement and the typed one, and should be grateful if you would carefully check through the typed statement making sure that you are completely happy with its contents. Please initial any alterations you make thereafter signing the statement of truth at the end. I enclose a stamped addressed envelope for its return.

As I have explained to you, I act on behalf of Norwich Union Insurance Limited in respect of a claim brought by Mr. Syed Uddin following a fire which occurred on 30^th November 1999. Included in Mr. Uddin’s claim is an allegation that 6 members of his family lived at 117, Whatley Avenue from 6^th December 1999 to 7^th February 2000. It is clear from your statement you have given me that this cannot be the case.

Mr. Uddin’s solicitors have now asked for an explanation as to why Norwich Union are of the opinion that Mr. Uddin’s family were not present at 117, Whatley Avenue during the period claimed. As you know your evidence confirms this without question. In the circumstances solicitors for Norwich Union would wish to advise Mr. Uddin’s solicitors that it is your evidence upon which they are relying.

I appreciate your reluctance in this and I am grateful for your agreement that we can release your name. I have no intention of advising them of your whereabouts and shall advise you of each and every stage of developments in the event of their [sic] arising. It is however my opinion that as soon as Mr. Uddin’s solicitors are made aware of our source of information they will simply advise him to no longer pursue his claim. This however is only my opinion but, as stated, I shall advise you of developments otherwise.”

33. Following the receipt of the letter dated 16 August 2000 Mr. Bailey signed the typed statement from which I have quoted earlier in this judgment and returned it to Mr. Russell-Price. By that stage, if not before, he must have understood precisely why the statement was required. Had he been under any misapprehension as to the nature of Mr. Russell-Price’s interest in the occupation of the Zaidi House before he received the letter, such misapprehension must have dissipated once he received the letter. In cross-examination Mr. Bailey accepted that he had received the letter. He said that he did not really read it, but he agreed that once he had received it he was “more aware of what was going on”. He said that he thought at this point that it was more trouble for him to correct the lies which he had told, on his present account, than to maintain them. His constant theme in cross-examination was that in order to obtain certain types of services, such as insurance or loans, it was necessary to be able to show that one had lived in a particular place for at least six months. For that reason, he asserted, he had lied when questioned by Mr. Russell-Price. It did not seem to strike Mr. Bailey as reflecting in any way adversely upon his character that he was prepared, enthusiastically on his account, to mislead providers of services as to the length of his residence in particular places. In order to bolster his present account of when he left the Zaidi House Mr. Bailey was prepared to admit that he had driven a motor vehicle whilst uninsured, that he had declared a false address to his insurers when he had arranged motor insurance, and that he had made a false declaration on a marriage licence. These are highly damaging admissions, if true. If, as I find, they are not true, the irresistible conclusion is that Mr. Bailey perjured himself in the witness box.
34. As a result of an order made earlier in these proceedings various documents relating to the declared addresses of Mr. Bailey from time to time were disclosed by third parties which had had dealings with him. The documents showed the following picture:-

(i) that Mr. Bailey notified Sentinel Card Services of a change in his address to the Zaidi House with effect from 2 September 1999;

(ii) that Mr. Bailey notified Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd. of a change in his address to the Zaidi House with effect from 2 September 1999, after which date the relevant policy of insurance lapsed;

(iii) that Mr. Bailey, having taken out a motor insurance policy with Direct Line with effect from 30 November 1999, notified a change of his address to an address in Dartford with effect from 29 March 2000;

(iv) that Mr. Bailey, having notified Lloyds TSB of a change in his address to the Zaidi House with effect from 2 September 1999, informed it of a further change, to an address in Dartford, with effect from 9 March 2000;

(v) that Mr. Bailey enrolled on 12 October 1999 with an organisation called Computeach International Ltd. giving his address as the Zaidi House;

(vi) that Mr. Bailey took out a career development loan from Barclays Bank Plc on 17 November 1999, giving his address as the Zaidi House.

35. While at the Zaidi House Mr. Bailey was living with a lady called Hye Young Park, who is apparently a national of the Republic of Korea. This lady, according to Mr. Bailey, spoke very little English and had entered the United Kingdom on a student visa. He told me that in about March 2000 it was necessary for Miss Young Park to be married urgently for reasons connected with her immigration status. He said that, although Miss Young Park’s command of English was poor, love had overcome that difficulty. A certificate of marriage at the Register Office in Merton on 15 March 2000 of Andrew Gowan Bailey, Casino inspector, and Hye Young Park, student, was put in evidence. In that certificate the address of both Mr. Bailey and Miss Young Park at the date of the marriage was said to be the Zaidi House. Mr. Bailey told me that he had given a false address for them both so that they could be married at the Register Office in Merton, as it was his wife’s particular wish to be married in the agreeable surroundings of that Register Office. Unhappily, Mr. Bailey’s marriage does not seem to have survived for very long the regularisation of Miss Young Park’s immigration status. The couple are no longer together.
36. Mr. Bailey explained to me in cross-examination that in his line of work as a manager of a casino he requires to hold a licence from the Gaming Board. In order to hold such a licence he has to satisfy the Gaming Board that he is a fit and proper person. I am entirely satisfied that he is a person upon whose honesty it would be impossible to rely in any circumstances. It seems to me that my assessment of Mr. Bailey as set out in this judgment, copies of the documents which he provided to Mr. Russell-Price or which were obtained pursuant to the order of Central London County Court made earlier in these proceedings, and a transcript of his evidence in this trial should be brought to the attention of the Gaming Board at the earliest opportunity so that it can reconsider the question of whether in its view Mr. Bailey is a fit and proper person to hold a gaming licence.
37. In all the circumstances I should be disinclined to place any reliance whatever upon the evidence of Mr. Bailey were it not for the fact that his original account given to Mr. Russell-Price was supported by documentary material and, to a degree, by the evidence given on behalf of Norwich Union by Mr. David Pates, by Mrs. Julie Pates and by Mr. Mark Hossack. Mr. and Mrs. Pates both gave evidence before me that they lived at 119, Whatley Avenue, which is a terrace house next door, and physically connected, to the Zaidi House. They said that they had lived there since January 1999 and they had seen no sign of an Indian family living in the Zaidi House. They each described those whom they said they had seen entering or leaving the Zaidi House. Mrs. Pates said that she had not been aware in about December 1999 or in January 2000 of any unfamiliar vehicle being parked in the vicinity of the Zaidi House. She thought that had there been children staying at the Zaidi House she would have heard them, if not seen them. She accepted that she could not be certain that if there had been a quiet family who spent little time at the Zaidi House she would have known that they were there. Mr. David Pates’s evidence was to the same effect as that of his wife. The evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Pates most assuredly does not demonstrate that no members of the Uddin family ever stayed at the Zaidi House, but it is not evidence that they did, either. The evidence is thus consistent with the account which Mr. Bailey gave to Mr. Russell-Price. It is independent evidence from people who have no interest in this litigation whatever, and I unhesitatingly accept it. I also accept without reservation the evidence of Mr. Hossack. Mr. Hossack told me that he was employed by a firm of estate agents called Andrews. He said that his firm was retained by Mr. Zaidi on 23 February 2000 to seek prospective purchasers for the Zaidi House. He said that he visited the Zaidi House on 23 February 2000 in order to value it. Mr. Zaidi told him that the front bedroom was rented to a friend, and when Mr. Hossack looked in that room he saw a white male in his late twenties, who had black hair, was just under six feet tall and of average build. Although I would have said that Mr. Bailey’s hair was brown rather than black, and although the description was not very precise, it broadly matches that of Mr. Bailey. On the account which he first gave Mr. Russell-Price Mr. Bailey was still in occupation of the front bedroom of the Zaidi House at the time of Mr. Hossack’s visit. On the evidence which Mr. Zaidi gave me, the front bedroom was empty for some time after the members of the Uddin family who had occupied the Zaidi House had left. Rather curiously, Mr. Hossack’s evidence is confirmed by the evidence of Mr. Syed Uddin in his statement to Mr. Russell-Price that the Zaidi House was, at the date of the statement, for sale. Mr. Hossack told me that on the occasion of his visit to the Zaidi House the larger bedroom to the rear appeared to be unoccupied, while the boxroom had only a mattress on the floor. The latter detail corresponded with evidence which Mr. Zaidi gave me that when a Spanish girl came to stay at the Zaidi House she requested that the bed in the boxroom be removed, as she only wanted a mattress. In the result I find that the account which Mr. Bailey set out in the witness statement which Mr. Russell-Price prepared and which Mr. Bailey signed was accurate.
38. As against the independent evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Pates and Mr. Hossack, Mr. Basu on behalf of the Claimants relied on the evidence of Mrs. Hamida Uddin, Mrs. Sapana Uddin, Miss Lylee Uddin and Mr. Motin Meah. The two Mrs. Uddins and Miss Uddin are relatively young members of the Uddin family, and each seemed to me to be of a naturally deferential disposition. Mr. Syed Uddin, on the other hand, struck me as quite a forceful character. Mr. Motin Meah also appeared to me to be a gentle soul. Before any of these witnesses came to give evidence, but after Mr. Syed Uddin had given his evidence, Mr. Ticciati made application to me that each should be excluded from the court room whilst any of the other witnesses called on behalf of the Claimants was being cross-examined. I did not rule on that application because Mr. Basu indicated that his clients were agreeable that no witness who had not been cross-examined should be present in court to hear any other witness for the Claimants give evidence. The effect of this rather theatrical gesture was somewhat diminished by the fact that at various times during the evidence of the Claimants’ witnesses, and without any explanation, Mr. Syed Uddin left the court room, returning some minutes later. There were also adjournments both in the middle of the day and overnight during the course of the evidence given on behalf of the Claimants after that of Mr. Syed Uddin. Mrs. Hamida Uddin gave evidence the day following the evidence of Mr. Meah and the commencement of the evidence of Mr. Zaidi. Mrs. Sapana Uddin and Miss Lylee Uddin gave evidence in the afternoon of the day in which the evidence of Mrs. Hamida Uddin started in the morning.
39. Mrs. Hamida Uddin told me that she had visited the Zaidi House only on one occasion, the occasion upon which she and her husband and his uncle first inspected the property and she wrote out what completed the blanks in the printed form of Tenancy Agreement. She did not say anything about the layout of the Zaidi House. The key, as it seems to me, to making an assessment of the reliability of her evidence is what she said about missing jewellery. Mrs. Hamida Uddin made two witness statements for the purposes of this action. The first was dated 13 August 2001 and the second was dated 28 November 2001. What she said about jewellery in the first statement was this:-

“3. The fire brigade eventually put the fire out and I believe that one of the fire officers handed the jewellery boxes to my husband who then showed them to me. I still have these boxes with the damaged jewellery in them. All of my jewellery had been stored in my bedroom where the fire started. Some of the jewellery was in the boxes which were handed to my husband, I [sic] was clearly ruined. Other items of jewellery had been left on top of the chest of drawers and bedside tables. The reason that some items of jewellery had been left out was because the day before the fire I had been to a party and had worn some of the jewellery. I had not put it away when the fire started.

4. After the fire was put out I went into the bedroom but it was extremely dark and I could not see very much at all. I could not see therefore whether my jewellery was still in the bedroom or not, or to what extent it had been destroyed. A representative from the loss adjuster came to the house two days after the fire and I told him about all the jewellery which I owned which was left in the bedroom. There was quite a lot of jewellery as a significant amount had been given to me at my wedding a few years earlier.”

In her later statement Mrs. Hamida Uddin said of her jewellery:-

“All of my jewellery from my wedding and other jewellery were destroyed in the fire.”

In cross-examination Mrs. Uddin agreed that both Mr. Ian Hanley from CEB and a Mr. Bryce from a firm of consulting engineers and scientists called R.B. Hawkins & Associates had searched through the debris of the fire and all either had been able to find by way of a trace of melted, gold-coloured metal was a melted gold-plated neck chain on the window sill of the room in which the fire had started. She also agreed that her jewellery could not just have vapourised in the fire without leaving any hint of its previous existence. She told me that the jewellery which she had described as damaged in her first witness statement was simply blackened by smoke and she had been able to clean it. She also said in additional evidence in chief, contrary to what she had said in her first witness statement, that the jewellery which she had left lying about in her bedroom was either on the window sill or on a stool. Her revised theory as to what had happened to the allegedly missing jewellery was that some person or persons unknown had taken it from the scene of the fire after the fire had been extinguished. She did not accuse the fire brigade, but she did say that many people, both family members and residents of Benedict Road, had visited the Property after the fire and some one or more of them must have taken her jewellery. That explanation, in my judgment, stretches credulity beyond breaking point. On her own account the second floor of the Property was in darkness after the fire. In order to have the opportunity to take any jewellery a visitor would have to have been permitted access to the second floor. Such access was controlled by members of the Uddin family. I find it inconceivable that, if anyone was allowed such access, it was not someone trusted by the family. If anyone had had access, they would have needed to have been extraordinarily fortunate to find, in the dark, in a fire-damaged room, all of the items of jewellery which Mrs. Hamida Uddin possessed, and then to have removed them, undetected, from the Property. I therefore reject the evidence of Mrs. Hamida Uddin in relation to the circumstances of the alleged disappearance of her jewellery, and, because of the grounds upon which I reject it, I reject all of her evidence.

40. An additional ground upon which I reject the evidence of Mrs. Hamida Uddin concerns her evidence as to the loss of the Set. In her second witness statement Mrs. Uddin said this:-

“1. I am making this statement in order to address some of the items on the attached list that were destroyed in the fire at my home in November 1999.

2. As the fire was quite sometime ago I cannot remember the value of every item on the list. However, a few days after the fire my husband and myself went through all of the items and made a list. Many of the items were gifts and so we had to ask other people the values of them when preparing the list. We have not disposed of any of the items as yet. They are all stored at my home mainly in black bags and can be inspected if necessary.”

The list attached to the statement included a page on which were listed “Valuables”, alleged to total in value £10,990. On that list the figure £3,500, the alleged value of the Set, occurred only once, beside an item described as “Large bracelet”. None of the items on the list had a description of anything which looked like the Set. There was no reference to any necklace. There was an item “2x pairs of gold bangles, 1x wide bracelet”, valued at £1,800 and an item “4/5 small pairs earrings”, valued at £600.When the absence of any apparent reference to the Set was drawn to her attention, Mrs. Uddin identified a list different from that attached to her second witness statement as being that which she had prepared with her husband. In that list an item of property listed as having been in “Bedroom 2” and valued at £3,500 had the notation beside it “should be necklace/wedding”. Initially Mrs. Uddin identified “Bedroom 2” as having been that which she had occupied before the fire with her husband and son. Then, when she was asked to consider what was listed as having been in “Bedroom 1”, she said that it was in that room that she had slept with her husband and son. When asked about the heading “Bedroom 2” on the page on which the item said to be worth £3,500 appeared she said that it was a mistake. When asked about why it was that the correction apparently made in the second list to which I have referred as to the nature of the item worth £3,500 had not been carried over into the list annexed to her second witness statement, she said that that was a mistake also. All of this in my judgment defies belief. I am satisfied that this part of her evidence Mrs. Hamida Uddin was making up as she went along. I am not satisfied that Mrs. Hamida Uddin is not still in possession of the Set.

41. Mrs. Sapana Uddin and Miss Lylee Uddin were alleged on behalf of the Claimants to have actually stayed at the Zaidi House for some two months. Mr. Ticciati, perhaps a little unwisely, sought to cross-examine each as to the physical layout of the Zaidi House. He had rather mixed success in this endeavour. Each of Mrs. Sapana Uddin and Miss Lylee Uddin was able to give a more or less accurate account of the layout of the bedrooms and the living room in the Zaidi House, as compared with the evidence of Mr. Zaidi, who gave evidence before either Mrs. Sapana Uddin or Miss Lylee Uddin. Neither Mrs. Sapana Uddin nor Miss Lylee Uddin was able to give any account at all of the kitchen or of what equipment was to be found in it. Mrs. Sapana Uddin thought that there was one telephone line to the Zaidi House, when in fact, according to Mr. Zaidi, there were two, and thought that there was only a telephone in the living room when in fact, according to Mr. Zaidi, there telephone points in each of the bedrooms as well and a hand-set in the larger rear bedroom. Mrs. Sapana Uddin, who said that she had driven the relevant members of the Uddin family to and from the Zaidi House by car, was able to describe a route of approach to the Zaidi House by road, but she thought that Whatley Avenue, which is in fact a dead end, was a through road. Miss Lylee Uddin was quite unable to give any account of how one approached the Zaidi House from anywhere else, or, indeed, of whereabouts in Whatley Avenue the Zaidi House is. I reject the evidence of Mrs. Sapana Uddin and Miss Lylee Uddin that either of them had ever stayed at the Zaidi House over the period 6 December 1999 to 7 February 2000. The fact that each was able to give, so far as she did, an accurate account of the layout of the Zaidi House is not consistent only with her having stayed in the Zaidi House when she says she did. She may have visited the property on some other occasion. She may have had the layout of the property described to her. In the light of all the other evidence put before me, I am satisfied that both Mrs. Sapana Uddin and Miss Lylee Uddin deliberately gave false evidence to me. Apart from when she was actually in the witness box, when she seemed to make an effort to appear positive and cheerful, all the time she was in court Miss Lylee Uddin seemed most unhappy and worried.
42. Mr. Motin Meah is a friend of Mr. Syed Uddin. He is also a friend of Mr. Syed Zaidi. He gave evidence that he called by prior arrangement to see Mr. Zaidi in order to do some work on Mr. Zaidi’s computer. The relevant occasion he put in his witness statement dated 2 August 2001 as having been in mid-December 1999. In his oral evidence he put it as having been in early February 2000. On the occasion in question Mr. Meah said that he knocked at the door of the Zaidi House and was surprised to find that the door was opened by Mrs. Sapana Uddin. She was, he said, wearing an outfit called a salwar kamiz, which he described as being a sort of shift-like tunic over loose fitting trousers. He told me that this sort of outfit is worn by Muslim women both during the day and at night, so that it was not obvious to him whether Mrs. Sapana Uddin had retired to bed or not. In his witness statement Mr. Meah said that after Mrs. Sapana Uddin had opened the door:-

“She explained to me that her and some of the other family members were staying at the property due to the fire damage at 3 Benedict Road. She told me that they only really stayed there at night to sleep, and during the rest of the day they would be at 3 Benedict Road with the rest of the family. I asked where Mr. Zaidi was and she said that he was not there. I then left and did not go into the property.”

In cross-examination Mr. Meah was far more vague in his account than he had been in his witness statement. When it was put to him in terms that the account which he had given was a fiction, he responded, in effect, that it was for the Court to decide whether that was so or not. It was not exactly a robust denial of an allegation of untruthfulness. I reject the evidence of Mr. Meah. If no members of the Uddin family ever stayed at the Zaidi House in the period 6 December 1999 to 7 February 2000, as I find, his evidence, unimpressively given, cannot possibly be accurate.

43. In addition to the witnesses to whose evidence I have referred in detail Mr. Ian Hanley and Mr. Graham Russell-Price were called on behalf of Norwich Union. Mr. Hanley gave evidence of making initial investigations into the claim and preparing a preliminary report, after which, he told me, his involvement ceased. There was a rather curious issue as to whether he had said to Mr. Syed Uddin that he would recommend that Norwich Union would make an interim payment of a sum of £10,000 against the claim which has given rise to this action. In fact an interim payment of £5,000 was made, which is the subject of the counterclaim. Mr. Hanley said that Mr. Syed Uddin and his financial adviser, who seems to have been Mr. Munaem Khan, asked for £10,000, but he only agreed to recommend £5,000. I accept the evidence of Mr. Hanley on this and on all other issues on which he gave evidence. The question of the alleged agreed amount of the interim payment seems only to have been raised in an attempt to sully the character of Norwich Union. It was not relevant to any pleaded issue in the action. Mr. Russell-Price gave evidence of his investigations on behalf of Norwich Union which led up to the decision to repudiate liability in this case. Some criticism was made of him and of how he conducted his investigations, in particular whether he made clear on whose behalf he was acting and what his precise interest was. I have no hesitation in rejecting such criticism and in accepting in its entirety the evidence of Mr. Russell-Price.

Conclusion

44. In the result, the claim made in this action fails and is dismissed. The counterclaim succeeds and there will be judgment for the Defendant in the sum of £5,000, together with interest, as to which I will hear Counsel.
45. I have already indicated that in my judgment the question of the fitness of Mr. Bailey to hold a licence from the Gaming Board is a matter which should be referred to the Gaming Board for its reconsideration in the light of this judgment, documents produced by him or obtained by the solicitors acting for Norwich Union pursuant to an order of Central London County Court, and a transcript of his evidence in this trial. It seems to me that the papers in this action should also be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for the consideration of the possible prosecution of Mr. Syed Uddin, Mr. Syed Zaidi, Mr. Andrew Bailey, Mrs. Hamida Uddin, Mrs. Sapana Uddin, Miss Lylee Uddin and Mr. Motin Meah. Apart from any question of perjury being committed before me in this trial, it seems to me that Mr. Syed Uddin, Mr. Syed Zaidi, Mrs. Hamida Uddin, Mrs. Sapana Uddin and Mr. Motin Meah have conspired together to attempt to defraud Norwich Union.