‘In this case, the claimant brought a claim for serious injuries arising from a RTA in January 2019. As a consequence, the claimant suffered severe brain injury which he alleged caused a lack of capacity.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 8th May 2024
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘In this case, the claimants brought a claim arising from a RTA in May 2017.
Liability was in issue. The claimants alleged the defendant driver had driven his van into their car; whereas the defendant driver alleged that the claimant driver drove from a parked position into the side of his van. The defence pleaded that the claimants’ credibility and honesty would be challenged at trial.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 30th May 2024
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The decision of Ritchie J in Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 gives, for the first time, judicial guidance on how the courts will apply the “substantial injustice” exception to the statutory rules on fundamental dishonesty. The case is also of interest for its clarification of when and how defendants should plead fundamental dishonesty.’
Exchange Chambers, 12th April 2024
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘In Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 (KB), Ritchie J found that, despite the Claimant having sustained serious injuries, which would have warranted damages of almost £600,000, that she had been fundamentally dishonest. This resulted in the entirety of her claim being dismissed under s57 of the Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015 (‘CJCA 2015’).’
39 Essex Chambers, 16th April 2024
Source: www.39essex.com
‘A defendant firm has hailed a rare court decision where a claimant’s lawyers were ordered to pay towards the costs of a fundamentally dishonest claim.’
Law Society's Gazette, 28th March 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In order to have a sense of how my own experience was mirrored by colleagues in Ropewalk Chambers, I conducted a recent survey asking colleagues for their own experiences regarding fundamental dishonesty at trial.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 30th March 2023
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
‘An injured person who claimed more than £500,000 for lost earnings – while hiding the fact he was still in paid work – has lost his entire damages award because of fundamental dishonesty.’
Law Society's Gazette, 1st July 2022
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Adrian Neale considers the question of when a claimant’s exaggeration of injury can be said to be deliberate and dishonest, following a recent appeal brought by a local authority.’
Local Government Lawyer, 3rd December 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A judge was right to find that a claimant who exaggerated the impact of a serious injury was not fundamentally dishonest, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 20th September 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Claimant brought a claim for damages against her General Practitioner for a missed diagnosis of breast cancer. As a result of the negligence, the Claimant had to undergo a mastectomy and axillary dissection, which would otherwise have been unnecessary. The Claimant argued that these treatments had left her with incapacitating chronic pain. The Defendant admitted breach of duty and causation, but contended that her claim should be dismissed because she had been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the claim.’
Parklane Plowden, 1st April 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘In the clinical negligence case of Aileen Brint v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 290 (QB), HHJ Platts dismissed the claim but declined to find the Claimant fundamentally dishonest. It is a reminder that significant unreliability does not necessarily equate to dishonesty, particularly where there is a complex psychological component.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 23rd February 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has rejected that a claimant suing a hospital was fundamentally dishonest – despite rejecting her evidence – because she believed she was telling the truth.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th February 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The High Court has upheld a decision not to order wasted costs against a law firm that failed to pass on a “drop hands” settlement offer to a client who was ultimately found to be fundamentally dishonest.’
Litigation Futures, 30th September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘On appeal, a High Court judge reversed the finding that a claimant was not fundamentally dishonest due to inconsistencies in the longevity of his injuries and the non-disclosure of a subsequent road traffic accident to a medical expert (“the deafening silences”). On this basis, the claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest pursuant to s.57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and was consequently ordered to pay 70% of the defendant insurer’s costs. Matthew Smith, co-founder of the PSQB fraud team, was instructed on behalf of the successful appellant insurer.’
Park Square Barristers, 3rd August 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The High Court has overturned a ruling that a claimant who defeated an argument that a car accident he was involved in was bogus, but lied about his injuries, was not fundamentally dishonest.’
Litigation Futures, 11th August 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has reversed a costs order on appeal after a successful defendant had initially been forced to pay most of the losing claimant’s costs.’
Law Society's Gazette, 1st August 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In a case in which fundamental dishonesty or fraud has not been found but, there has been a significant level of exaggeration, will the court reduce an award of costs? The answer, of course, is considering CPR Part 44: yes… possibly.’
Park Square Barristers, 5th May 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A recorder was wrong to find that a personal injury claimant was not fundamentally dishonest because he did not persist with his dishonesty, the High Court has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 16th March 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘There are signs that courts are more willing to make findings of fundamental dishonesty when they reject claimants’ cases, a leading defendant firm has suggested.’
Litigation Futures, 21st January 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Personal injury analysis: Convincing telematics evidence, coupled with evidence of social media links between the claimant and defendant, was sufficient for a road traffic accident claim to be dismissed and findings of fundamental dishonesty to be made against both the claimant and first defendant. Fundamental dishonesty will be pursued by an insurance company even if the finding is made against their own insured. Emily Formby discusses the case for Lexis PSL.’
39 Essex Chambers, 7th January 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024