A young driver ordered to reimburse a hefty sum to his insurance company after the accident has filed an appeal, saying that the Civil Court had failed to produce convincing evidence that he was over the limit at the time.

Alexander Jan Edward Van Reeven had been driving his mother's car towards Vittoriosa after an evening out in Sliema on January 5, 2009 when the vehicle suddenly skidded and slammed into two cars parked in Għajn Dwieli Road, Paola.

The driver had left the scene of the accident so as to file a police report, but questioned later about the accident, he said the car had been stolen from Sliema, and had merely stated "I wouldn't have a clue", admitting that earlier that evening he had drunk "a couple of beers".

Gasan Mamo Insurance Ltd, as the company footing the bill for the driver's wrongdoing, filed a suit against Mr Van Reeven and his mother, Jeanette Marie Van Reeven as the holder of the car insurance policy, before the First Hall, Civil Court and had been awarded €20,650 as reimbursement of what it had paid to the owners of the damaged cars.

The court had concluded that by taking the wheel after having consumed alcohol, Mr Van Reeven had breached the insurance policy.

In the appeal application, it was argued that the first court had rapped the insurance company for failing to produce convincing evidence regarding the driver's state at the time of the accident, noting that the police had never mentioned any smell of alcohol or suspicious behaviour on the part of Mr Van Reeven.

Yet the court had concluded that the driver's behaviour, his panicked state which led to the filing of the false report, the nature of the accident and the extent of damages caused, all indicated that the man had been driving under the influence of drink – even though there was no proof that the driver had actually overstepped the legal drink limits or how long had elapsed between the consumption of the beer and the time of the accident.

In the appeal Mr Van Reeven’s legal team said that the reasoning of the first court was "strange and contradictory" since it was based on mere suspicions rather than on facts. Moreover, the burden of proof had been shifted onto the appellant who had to convince the court that he not exceeded the legal alcohol limits at the time of the accident.

Lawyers David Camilleri and Joseph Gatt filed the appeal.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.