EXAGGERATION OF INJURIES IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: HIGH COURT DECISION

September 17, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Elgamal v Westminster City Council [2021] EWHC 2510 (QB) Mr Justice Jacobs rejected an appeal from a defendant that argued the trial judge should have found a claimant to be fundamentally dishonest.

"The Defendant's argument, based on the word "potentially", loses sight of the need for the disho...

Enjoying this post?

Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium content.

Become a member

Already a member? Log in below

Tags: Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

2 Responses

Nigel Smith · September 17, 2021 at 16:12:48 · →

“The claimant clearly in his evidence believes that he is disabled to a greater extent than I have found. He gave clear evidence that he was making adjustments to get into the car that were not visible to me. From his perspective he was not lying.

However objectively he was exaggerating and so as a fact was lying.”

Is this logically correct. ? Surely lying connotes making a statement that the witness knows to be false. If the statement is merely not true without being deliberately false, it is merely mistaken. A lie cannot be objective unless it is subjectively reckless or known to be untrue.
Anonymous · September 18, 2021 at 13:00:24 · →

We need a fundamental dishonesty rule for Defendants.