A cyclist who knocked over a yoga teacher as she crossed the road while looking at her phone will be left 'bankrupt' after being forced to pay up to £100,000 in court costs and compensation.

Gemma Brushett, 28, was awarded £4,161.79 in damages after she successfully sued Robert Hazeldean for knocking her down in central London during rush hour in July 2015.

Today she escaped having to pay out for the two-day court case, despite judge Shanti Mauger ruling she was 'equally to blame for the accident'.

Instead Mr Hazeldean, who moved to France for a 'new life', will have to foot the legal bill, which could be as much as £100,000 because he wasn't insured at the time of the crash and never launched a counter claim.

He said the four-year case has taken a toll on his mental health and leaves his future 'uncertain' in an emotional statement this morning.

Gemma Brushett, 28, has successfully sued Robert Hazeldean after she was knocked down in central London during rush hour in July 2015

The yoga teacher (pictured doing a warrior pose on a yoga retreat) was looking at her phone when she stepped into the central London road - but the cyclist should have been better prepared to avoid her, the court heard

A close friend of Robert Hazeldean is trying to crowdfund to cover his legal costs

Mr Hazeldean had come through a green traffic light, and had sounded a loud airhorn attached to his bike, as well as shouting, swerving and braking in a bid to avoid Ms Brushett - but ploughed into her at up to 15mph, Central London's County Court heard this week.

Do cyclists need insurance? While motorists are required to have third party insurance at the very least to be on the road, the same does not apply for cyclists. Very few cyclists opt to take out an insurance policy in case they are involved in a crash with another biker or a pedestrian. But this can prove costly if they do end up running into someone. When a cyclist hits a pedestrian who was not looking where they were going, courts often rule that both parties are equally to blame. That means that both parties are liable to pay their own legal costs, which often spirals into five-figure sums. The cyclist may also have to pay the pedestrian compensation, which can add thousands more pounds. If the cyclist does have cover, they are protected from huge legal bills by the insurance company from someone claiming they are at fault for a crash. British Cycling offers cover against legal bills of up to £15million for commuter cyclists. John Woosey, managing director of the specialist cycling insurance provider Cycleplan, said: 'Instances like these prove that specialist cycling insurance isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. 'With Public Liability insurance, cyclists are covered for potential legal costs if a claim is made against them for injury to another person or property damage. 'It's a small price to pay compared to potentially life changing court costs as in the case of Mr Hazeldean.' Advertisement

But in a significant ruling judge Mauger said Mr Hazeldean was liable to pay Ms Brushett compensation because 'cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.'

She said: 'Mr Hazeldean did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.'

Lawyers acting on his behalf revealed that because he was uninsured, Mr Hazeldean will have to foot the bill for the court case, which could reach up to £100,000.

But if he had been insured and launched a counter claim, Ms Brushett would have been only allowed to claim £7,000 in costs.

Devastated, the respondent said he has been left reeling by the shock verdict.

In a statement this morning he blasted the 'claim culture' he said will leave him bankrupt as he called for reform of the legal system.

The cycling enthusiast said: 'Today finally brings to a close four years that have taken a great toll on my mental health.

'I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome, reeling from the impact it will have on my life, and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.

'I am more grateful than I can say for the support of my wonderful girlfriend and my friends and family. I would not have got through this without them.

'I have also been extremely touched by the messages of support from strangers who have read about the case in the press.'

His close friend Brittany Maher-Kirk has now set up a GoFundMe to help Mr Hazeldean pay his legal bill.

On Twitter, she said: 'The courts have not only failed Robert today but have set a dangerous precedent for cyclists across the country.

'This about so much more than one man on his way home from work.

'I'm hoping to raise enough to cover all of Robert's costs. If I, by some miracle, raise more, then I will donate the rest to @ActionAidUK Robert has sponsored a child through them for 13 years and has had to stop because of financial pressures.'

The mental health charity worker, formerly of north London, was cycling home when he collided with Ms Brushett, of Kent, as she crossed a junction near Cannon Street station in the City, the court was told.

The light was green for the cyclist, and he shouted and sounded a large air horn but failed to dodge her.

Both were knocked unconscious by the impact, with city finance worker Ms Brushett, who also runs yoga retreats, suffering a minor head injury and Mr Hazeldean ending up with cuts.

Judge Mauger said the cyclist was 'a calm and reasonable road user' and Ms Brushett 'was looking at her phone' when she walked into the road in front of him.

But she went on to rule that Mr Hazeldean was liable to pay damages regardless.

Miss Brushett, who works in the City but also runs yoga retreats across Europe, pictured, often combined with long runs, is expected to receive thousands in compensation

Mr Hazeldean, who has since moved to the Côte d'Azur in the south of France, to work as a landscape designer, said the verdict will leave him penniless.

He added: 'The case has cast a shadow over our new life in France and left our future uncertain.

'Covering the costs and the compensation is going to exceed £20,000 and will leave me bankrupt.

'I can only hope that the focus on this case highlights the vulnerability of cyclists, both physically and against the courts and that it might help reform a legal system that appears to leave certain road users disproportionately exposed.'

Lawyers now acting on behalf of Mr Hazeldean said he has been left with 'permanent scarring, both physically and mentally' as a result of the verdict.

He said: 'I'd like to thank my lawyers for helping me understand and navigate the complexities of the legal system, and can only regret not having engaged them sooner, delayed as I was by my lack of legal knowledge and concern about the costs.

What is the law for cyclists who run into pedestrians? Kim Briggs, 44, was crossing the street when she was struck by Charlie Alliston's bike, which it later emerged had no front brakes. The Government is looking at a range of options to make the roads safer for pedestrians after a record number of pedestrians are being killed or seriously injured in crashes with cyclists. In total, some 130 people were seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists last year, and four were killed. More than ten pedestrians suffered life threatening injuries every month when they are hit by people on bicycles. The issue of pedestrian and pedal cycle safety was highlighted when cyclist Charlie Alliston, 20, was jailed for 18 months in 2017 for knocking over and killing a woman as he sped through east London. His victim Kim Briggs, 44, was crossing the street when she was struck by Alliston's bike, which it later emerged had no front brakes. Mrs Briggs' widower, Matthew, from Lewisham, south London, has called for a 'radical change' in cycling culture and the introduction of new laws, including the offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. In August last year Sakine Cihan, 56, was killed after being struck by an electrically-assisted bike in Dalston, London. A 30-year-old man was later arrested by police in connection with the crash. Following the jailing last year of Alliston for the death of Mrs Briggs, the Department for Transport announced an urgent review examining whether new laws should be brought in to cover dangerous cycling. The Victorian legislation, originally drafted to deal with reckless handling of horses, was used because there was no cycling equivalent to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. Advertisement

'I feel that most cyclists would not have appreciated the consequences of not taking the opportunity to put forward a counterclaim which meant that I was unable to rely on the legislation in the same way that the claimant has to protect myself against a destructive costs award.

'This was not because I was not injured, but because I do not advocate the claim culture.

'Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.

'I would urge other cyclists to take out insurance through British Cycling to help protect them from experiencing what I've gone through.'

Emma Farrell, head of the Personal Injury team at Levi Solicitors, acting for Mr Hazeldean, added: 'If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the claimant's legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690.

'If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally.

'He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order.'

A spokesman for the company added: 'We believe that the law in this area urgently needs reforming.'

The court heard that Ms Brushett was one of a 'throng' of people trying to cross the road at the start of rush hour when the accident occurred.

She was looking at her mobile phone when crossing the road from east to west, and only noticed Mr Hazeldean approaching at the last moment.

Ms Brushett's lawyers told the judge that she could not remember anything about the crash due to 'post traumatic amnesia'.

But she relied on the evidence of another cyclist who had witnessed the crash and confronted Mr Hazeldean immediately afterwards.

That witness had made a voice recording at the time, accusing Mr Hazeldean of 'aggressive riding' and calling him 'arrogant and reckless'.

Three other pedestrian witnesses however backed Mr Hazeldean, telling police that Ms Brushett was 'not looking where she was going' and that 'the cyclist was not at fault'.

Mr Hazeldean said in the witness box that as he approached the spot where people were crossing, there was a large patch of clear road, although some people were still on the extreme left hand side of the carriageway about to step onto the pavement.

Ms Brushett was one of these, but having looked up from her phone screen at the last minute upon hearing him shout she panicked and darted back towards the right and into his path.

Judge Mauger rejected the account of the crash by the other cyclist, adding: 'The other witnesses feel that the accident was Ms Brushett's fault.'

'Mr Hazeldean is clear that she was looking at her phone as she was crossing the road,' she continued.

'Three other witnesses said she stepped out or that the cyclist could not avoid her.

'I find that she was looking at her phone and I accept the account of Mr Hazeldean that she turned and went back towards the central reservation.'

But she went on to find that Ms Brushett deserved a payout.

'When I stand back and ask 'how did the accident happen?' it seems to me that Mr Hazeldean owed a duty to other road users to drive with reasonable care and skill,' she said.

'Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way.

But she added that Ms Brushett's conduct as a pedestrian must have contributed to the accident.

'Ms Brushett must clearly have equal responsibility if she is crossing the road without looking - and if she is looking at her phone, even more so,' she said.

'But cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.

'The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50.'

The exact figure Mr Hazeldean will have to pay will be decided at a later date, but between them the parties have racked up over £100,000 in bills.

'This is not the normal sort of bill one would expect to see in a case of this type,' the judge added.