Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham.
Browse: Home » Fundamental Dishonesty
A "WHOLLY UNRELIABLE" WITNESS IS NOT NECESSARILY A DISHONEST ONE:  ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDMENTAL DISHONESTY NOT ACCEPTED BY JUDGE

A “WHOLLY UNRELIABLE” WITNESS IS NOT NECESSARILY A DISHONEST ONE: ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDMENTAL DISHONESTY NOT ACCEPTED BY JUDGE

February 18, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Witness statements

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

CONTEMPT OF COURT, THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH AND THE CRIMINAL STANDARD OF PROOF: HIGH COURT DECISION FINDS CLAIMANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

November 20, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Committal proceedings, Fundamental Dishonesty

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

LIFE IN LAW ISN’T ALWAYS GLAMOROUS: A CLIENT CAN BLAME THEIR LAWYER (OR FORMER LAWYER) FOR THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT

October 19, 2020 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Fundamental Dishonesty, Witness statements

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

HIGH COURT JUDGE OVERTURNS FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIMANT HAS TO PAY DEFENDANT’S COSTS

July 31, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty

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

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANT HAD BEEN FLUSHED OUT AND WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: HIGH COURT ALLOWS APPEAL

March 10, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Witness statements

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

“GOOD DAYS AND BAD DAYS”: FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AT TRIAL – AN EXAMPLE

February 6, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty

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

2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – THE YEAR IN REVIEW (4): FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY

December 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Experts, 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

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE LEADS TO QOCS BEING DISAPPLIED

October 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Fundamental Dishonesty, Witness statements

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

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY – THE “SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE” ARGUMENT: THREE KEY CASES

August 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Fundamental Dishonesty

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

EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF

February 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Witness statements

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)

PLEADING AND ARGUING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE CLAIMANT KNEW WHAT WAS COMING (ON THIS OCCASION)

July 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Fundamental Dishonesty, Statements of Case

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...

A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIM DISMISSED – SOCIAL MEDIA AND FACEBOOK PLAY A PART…

July 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty

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

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ALLEGATION SHOULD HAVE GONE TO A HEARING: HIGH COURT DECISION: NO REQUIREMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

June 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Fundamental Dishonesty, QOCS

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

FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY TRIAL JUDGE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED

May 24, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Fundamental Dishonesty

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"

CLAIMANTS WERE NOT CREDIBLE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL SUCCESSFUL: “THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED AN ANSWERABLE CASE THAT THE CLAIMANTS FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE”

May 24, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Case Management, Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Schedules, Witness statements

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

DEFENDANT FAILS TO OBTAIN FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL DISMISSED: A BADLY THOUGHT OUT AND POORLY DRAFTED SCHEDULE

April 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty

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"

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: INACCURATE STATEMENT OF MEDICAL TREATMENT WAS DISHONEST: NO “SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE”

February 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Clinical Negligence, Fundamental Dishonesty

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

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY A DOZEN THINGS TO THINK ABOUT: A RECAP

January 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Fundamental Dishonesty, QOCS

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….

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL: WHEN A CLAIMANT DIGS A BIG HOLE FOR THEMSELVES THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL: WHEN A CLAIMANT DIGS A BIG HOLE FOR THEMSELVES THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM

January 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

In  London Organising Committee of the Olympic And Paralympic Games (LOCOG) v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles overturned a decision whereby a claimant was allowed damages.  The claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in making a claim for…

ALLEGING AND FINDING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY, PLEADING AND EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

ALLEGING AND FINDING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY, PLEADING AND EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

October 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, QOCS, Statements of Case

I am grateful to barrister Tom Vonberg  for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal decision today in Howlett -v- Ageas [2017] EWCA Civ 1696.  Howlett & anr v Davies & anr- jt Final-1. Tom acted for the…

1 2 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2021. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 22,973 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • “THE DEVELOPING BODY OF LAW AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COSTS MANAGEMENT AND DETAILED ASSESSMENT”: INTERIM ORDER FOR COSTS AFTER A TRIAL: 90% OF BUDGETED COSTS 70% OF INCURRED COSTS
  • MEDIATION PRIVILEGE UPHELD: “PARTIES MUST BE FREE TO CANDIDLY DISCUSS ALL OPTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT”
  • “BUILD IT AND WHO CARES IF THEY COME”: THE REGISTER ON WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE COURT RULES AND LISTING ONLINE: THE ABSENCE OF “SCHOOL-GRADE WEB SKILLS”
  • AN APPLICATION THAT WAS “OPPORTUNISTIC AND WITHOUT MERIT”: NON-PAYMENT OF THE COURT FEE WITHIN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A LIMITATION DEFENCE: JARNDYCE -v- JARNDYCE CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
  • THE RULES ARE BACK IN TOWN: ASKING WHERE THEY COULD BE FOUND…

Top Posts & Pages

  • WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE DOCK AGAIN: "DESPITE HAVING EXPRESSLY ADOPTED THE WITNESS STATEMENTS IN EVIDENCE IN CHIEF [HE] COULD NOT CONFIRM THAT IT REPRESENTED HIS EVIDENCE"
  • THE RULES ARE BACK IN TOWN: ASKING WHERE THEY COULD BE FOUND...
  • AN APPLICATION THAT WAS "OPPORTUNISTIC AND WITHOUT MERIT": NON-PAYMENT OF THE COURT FEE WITHIN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A LIMITATION DEFENCE: JARNDYCE -v- JARNDYCE CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
  • "BUILD IT AND WHO CARES IF THEY COME": THE REGISTER ON WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE COURT RULES AND LISTING ONLINE: THE ABSENCE OF "SCHOOL-GRADE WEB SKILLS"
  • MEDIATION PRIVILEGE UPHELD: "PARTIES MUST BE FREE TO CANDIDLY DISCUSS ALL OPTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT"

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Hardwicke
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Copyright © 2021 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin