A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: SOCIAL MEDIA, SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE AND INACCURATE STATEMENTS LEAD TO CLAIMANT LOSING £44,890
I am grateful to Aled Morris from Horwich Farrely for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Beard in Anderson -v- Porch (14th January 2021), a copy of which is available here OT APPROVED HORWICH, F38YJ633, ANDERSON, PORCH,…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY IN PURSUING A LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM: “IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CASE FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER PSYCHIC POWERS EXIST”
I am grateful to barrister Brian McCluggage for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Backhouse in Amdur -v- Krylov (13/04/21) a copy of which is available here E14YJ570 Amdur v Krylov final 13.4.21 (1). The judge…
DEFENDANT NOT PERMITTED TO PLEAD FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ON A SPECULATIVE OR CONTINGENT BASIS
In Mustard v Flower & Ors [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) Master Davison refused a defendant’s application to amend its defence to plead fundamental dishonesty on a “contingent” basis. The judgment deals with important issues as to how a defendant must…
CLAIMANT WHO GAVE MISLEADING ACCOUNT OF HER INJURIES FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST
In Smith v London Borough of Haringey [2021] EWHC 615 (QB) Master David Cook found a claimant to be fundamentally dishonest. A failure to disclose previous back problems, coupled with an exaggeration of her medical condition was found to be…
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WEBINAR 11th MAY 2021
I am co-presenting a webinar with solicitor John McQuater on fundamental dishonesty in personal injury action on the 11th May 2021. HOW TO BOOK Details of how to book are available here. THE WEBINAR This webinar will bring you right…
CLEAR FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: NO SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE: CLAIMANT IN AT THE DEEP END
I am grateful to barrister Nadia Whittaker for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Sephton QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Iddon -v- Warner, a judgment given on the 2nd March 2021. A copy of…
A “WHOLLY UNRELIABLE” WITNESS IS NOT NECESSARILY A DISHONEST ONE: ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDMENTAL DISHONESTY NOT ACCEPTED BY JUDGE
In Brint v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 290 (QB) HHJ Platts (sitting as a High Court Judge) rejected the defendant’s case that a witness who was “wholly unreliable” was also fundamentally dishonest. “Failing…
CONTEMPT OF COURT, THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH AND THE CRIMINAL STANDARD OF PROOF: HIGH COURT DECISION FINDS CLAIMANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
In Zurich Insurance Plc v Barnicoat & Anor [2020] EWHC 3127 (QB) David Lock (QC) sitting as a Judge of the High Court considered the difficulties a party seeking an order for contempt of court faces when they do not…
LIFE IN LAW ISN’T ALWAYS GLAMOROUS: A CLIENT CAN BLAME THEIR LAWYER (OR FORMER LAWYER) FOR THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT
A classic example of a client seeking to blame their lawyer for the contents of a witness statement can be seen in the judgment in Simpson v Payne, reported in the PI Brief Update Law Journal. THE CASE The claimant…
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…
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…
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…
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…
