HIGH COURT JUDGE OVERTURNS FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIMANT HAS TO PAY DEFENDANT’S COSTS
In Pegg v Webb & Anor [2020] EWHC 2095 (QB) tMr Justice Spencer overturned a finding of a trial judge that a claimant had not been fundamentally dishonest. The claimant had been dishonest in the failures to give full disclosure…
TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANT HAD BEEN FLUSHED OUT AND WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: HIGH COURT ALLOWS APPEAL
In Roberts v Kesson & Anor [2020] EWHC 521 (QB) Mr Justice Jay allowed a defendant’s appeal and held that the trial judge should have found the claimant to be fundamentally dishonest. The fact that the claimant had been “flushed…
“GOOD DAYS AND BAD DAYS”: FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AT TRIAL – AN EXAMPLE
Last month I reviewed the judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Grant -v- Newport City Council [2018] EWHC 3813. In that case the judge allowed the defendant to adduce surveillance evidence, even though it was adduced late. I am grateful to Mark…
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – THE YEAR IN REVIEW (4): FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY
There have been relatively few cases about fundamental dishonesty this year. However the cases that have been reported have all been interesting. The first involves a failing adverse to the defendant. The second highlights the point that there is no…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 69 : SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE LITIGATOR: A RECAP
The earlier post on the judgment last Jet 2 Holidays Ltd v Hughes & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1858 was another case in which social media played a part. The defendant holiday company found social media entries which appeared inconsistent…
PROVING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY – WHEN NEITHER THE CLAIMANT OR DEFENDANT ARE IN COURT: TELEMATIC EVIDENCE – NOW HERE’S A THING
I am grateful to barrister Mark Roberts for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Gargan in Wise -v- Hegarty & Alpha Insurance (9th July 2019) a copy of which is available here. OT APPROVED CRAWFORD D10YJ706 WISE…
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE LEADS TO QOCS BEING DISAPPLIED
In Haider v DSM Demolition Ltd [2019] EWHC 2712 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles refused a claimant’s appeal against a finding that the defendant was not negligent. He granted the defendant relief from sanctions and allowed an appeal against a…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY – THE “SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE” ARGUMENT: THREE KEY CASES
Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 introduced the concept of “fundamental dishonesty” and provides penalties when a claimant is found to be fundamentally dishonest. Section 57 (2) provides an exception if the court finds that the…
PROVING THINGS 148: FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY PROVEN: NO NEED TO WAIT FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
In Patel v Arriva Midlands Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1216 (QB) HHJ Melissa Clarke (sitting as a High Court Judge) accepted the defendant’s argument that the claimant was fundamentally dishonest. The claim was struck out under Section 57 of…
EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF
The judgment of HHJ Hampton in Smith -v- Ashwell Maintenance Limited (Leicester County Court 21/01/2019) is available through a Linked In post provided by barrister Andrew Mckie. It provides a number of lessons for those collecting evidence. In a case where…
YOU’RE FIRED: A LITIGATOR ON THE APPRENTICE 8: “THE BIGGEST ATTEMPT AT ROBBERY SINCE HATTON GARDEN”: DID OUR LAWYER GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY?
We have one surviving lawyer – Sarah Ann. This week she switched teams – to “Collaborative” and turned her hand to garden design, even getting her hands dirty in the process. Her team won. This series continues for another week….
“RECKLESS EXPERTS”: SHOULDERING THE BLAME: WHEN THE EXPERT HAS NOT READ THE DOCUMENTS TO HAND
The judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB) was looked at earlier. It made the point that “reckless” reporting by experts can lead to experts being in contempt of court. This led me to…
PLEADING AND ARGUING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE CLAIMANT KNEW WHAT WAS COMING (ON THIS OCCASION)
We have already looked at the factual findings in Pinkus v Direct Line [2018] EWHC 1671. Of equal interest is that part of the judgment where the judge considered the claimant’s argument that the defendant should not be allowed to argue fundamental…
A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIM DISMISSED – SOCIAL MEDIA AND FACEBOOK PLAY A PART…
In Pinkus v Direct Line [2018] EWHC 1671 (QB) HHJ Coe (sitting as a judge of the High Court) found a claimant to be fundamentally dishonest. It is another example of how the courts can look at social media to come…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ALLEGATION SHOULD HAVE GONE TO A HEARING: HIGH COURT DECISION: NO REQUIREMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
In Alpha Insurance A/S v Roche & Anor [2018] EWHC 1342 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip found that the circuit judge should have allowed a claim of fundamental dishonesty to be heard. She allowed an appeal and held that the court should…
FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY TRIAL JUDGE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED
The previous post dealt with a judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturning a judgment in favour of the claimant. The judgment in Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service & Anor [2018] EWHC 1288 (QB) is in similar terms. Only on…
CLAIMANTS WERE NOT CREDIBLE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL SUCCESSFUL: “THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED AN ANSWERABLE CASE THAT THE CLAIMANTS FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE”
In Richards & Anor v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) the defendant was successful in appealing on the grounds that the trial judge should have made more robust findings from the lack of credibility on the part of the claimants. There…
DEFENDANT FAILS TO OBTAIN FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL DISMISSED: A BADLY THOUGHT OUT AND POORLY DRAFTED SCHEDULE
In Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip refused the defendant’s appeal in a case where it was argued that the trial judge should have made a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The claimant had not…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: INACCURATE STATEMENT OF MEDICAL TREATMENT WAS DISHONEST: NO “SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE”
One of the many complex issues that Mrs Justice Cockerill considered in Razumas v Ministry of Justice [2018] EWHC 215 (QB) today was the question of fundamental dishonesty. The claimant gave a misleading account of medical treatment. He was found to…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY A DOZEN THINGS TO THINK ABOUT: A RECAP
Given recent decisions on fundamental dishonesty this may be a good time to rake over some key points. “I assure the Committee that the way that the clause is drafted should not result in the courts using the measures lightly….