‘This appeal and cross appeal were about a road traffic accident that the Defendant alleged had been staged. Ultimately, the Defendant succeeded in demonstrating that the Claimant had presented a claim that was fundamentally dishonest, albeit that the Court found that his dishonesty related to quantum rather than liability.’
St John's Buildings, 5th November 2019
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘The recently decided appeal of Mansur Haider v DSM Demolition Ltd [2019] EWHC 2712 (QB), is an interesting case and will be useful to practitioners who deal with road traffic matters, both on the finding in respect of liability and the finding of fundamental dishonesty.’
Park Square Barristers, 31st October 2019
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A personal injury claimant who lied over whether he had credit cards which could have been used to pay for a replacement car, instead of credit hire, was fundamentally dishonest, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 17th October 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has thrown out a personal injury claim – without letting the case go to full quantum trial – after the litigant presented an ‘egregiously untrue picture’ of his disabilities.’
Law Society's Gazette, 16th May 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A finding of fundamental dishonesty in a personal injury claim should mean an associated credit hire claim is also struck out, a circuit judge has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 19th March 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Spencer Smith v Ashwell Maintenance Limited (Leicester County Court, 21/1/2019) – claimant who was found to have exaggerated and overstated his difficulties not fundamentally dishonest on the basis that his motive was to convince rather than to deceive.’
Zenith PI, 21st February 2019
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘I recently represented a claimant at trial in relation to a personal injury claim arising out of a road traffic accident. The defendant indicated an intention to pursue a finding of fundamental dishonesty. There were certain aspects of the evidence that might have led to such a finding, but such an outcome was far from certain.’
Zenith PI, 30th November 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The claimant discontinued a claim. The defendants alleged that the claim was dishonest and asked the court to determine the issue of fundamental dishonesty so the defendants could enforce their entitlement to costs.’
Zenith PI Blog, 18th September 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A claimant who suffered a genuine injury – but admitted being dishonest about the extent of his symptoms tripping in a pothole – has lost his argument that was not fundamentally dishonest.’
Litigation Futures, 20th August 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has dismissed in its entirety a £850,000 personal injury claim on the grounds of fundamental dishonesty.’
Litigation Futures, 19th July 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In Wright v Satellite Information Services Limited [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) the Defendant appealed against the decision of the trial judge, HHJ Pearce, who refused to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty within the meaning of section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
Zenith PI, 27th April 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A personal injury claimant who gave a “misleading impression” of his injuries was not fundamentally dishonest, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 17th April 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has refused to overturn a personal injury ruling despite defendant lawyers arguing that the judge should have found the claim to be “fundamentally dishonest”.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th April 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A personal injury claimant’s dishonest actions must “substantially affect” the presentation of his case if the court is to make a finding of ‘fundamental dishonesty’, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd January 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘On 30th October 2017, the Court of Appeal finally settled whether fundamental dishonesty needs to pleaded before a Defendant can rely on CPR 44.16(1) to set aside QUOCS.’
Park Square Barristers, 3rd November 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A defendant does not have to specifically plead fundamental dishonesty for a court to find that qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) should be disapplied, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 31st October 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A district judge in Manchester has made an award of exemplary damages after finding road traffic accident claimants guilty of bringing fundamentally dishonest claims.’
Litigation Futures, 10th January 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A leading defendant firm says insurers will be more empowered to deploy fundamental dishonesty defences after another favourable judgment from the Court of Appeal. In Menary v Darnton, which is yet to be published, insurer Aviva was able to appeal the application of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) in favour of the claimant and avoid any costs.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st December 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Holly Clegg considers: If a Judge finds the Claimant’s evidence to be incredible, should the Defendant necessarily seek a finding of fundamental dishonesty? Not unless such a finding is clearly sustainable on the evidence, according to the case of Meadows v La Tasca Restaurants Limited.’
Park Square Barristers, 7th November 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘On the 1st November 2016 at Manchester County Court Toby Coupe, instructed by Toby Evans (Partner, Keoghs LLP) and Richard Harvey (Senior Claims Handler, Zurich Insurance PLC) to act on behalf of Zurich Insurance PLC (‘Zurich’), obtained an order that the Claimants and the Second Defendant do pay Zurich £5,000 in exemplary damages and £16,844.04 in indemnity costs, such costs to be enforceable to the full extent of the Order pursuant to CPR 44.16 (1), on the basis that the claims had been found to be fundamentally dishonest.’
Park Square Barristers, 2nd November 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024