JUDGMENT OF A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY – BUT THIS CASE GOES MUCH FURTHER: COLLUSION IS FOUND
In Khan -v- Aviva Insurance Ltd (15/11/2022) District Judge Lumb made a clear finding of fundamental dishonesty on the part of a personal injury claimant. That finding was confirmed, or perhaps compounded, by the judge’s views in relation to the…
CLAIMANT FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT A BICYCLE
My attention has recently been drawn to the judgment of HHJ Ralton in Darnley -v- Cornish 2021 WL 04760420. The judge, on appeal, overturned a finding that a claimant, who had misled the court as to ownership of a bicycle…
CLAIMANT LIED ABOUT “JOB OFFER”: FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND LOSES £130,000
I am grateful to Aled Morris from Horwich Farrelly for sending me a transcript of the judgment of HHJ Murdock in Hawkins -v- Holmes (County Court at Leicester, 1st April 2022). It is a case where the court found the…
“SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE” AND FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WE’LL KNOW IT WHEN WE SEE IT BUT WE DON’T SEE IT HERE: JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO IMPOSE USUAL PENALTIES OVERTURNED ON APPEAL
In Woodger v Hallas [2022] EWHC 1561 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles overturned a decision of the Circuit Judge that the usual principles of a finding of fundamental dishonesty should not apply to the claimant. The judgment involves a consideration…
COURT ALLOWS CLAIMANT’S APPEAL AGAINST FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE ISSUES AND MADE ITS CASE CLEAR
In Jenkinson v Robertson [2022] EWHC 756 (Admin) Mr Justice Choudhury set aside a trial judge’s finding of fundamental dishonesty on the part of a claimant. This is a judgment that highlights the need for defendants to give clear notice…
THE COURTS WILL RARELY DETERMINE ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
In Stannard -v- Euro Garages Ltd [2022] EW Misc 3 (CC) HHJ Walden-Smith dismissed the defendant’s application that the issue of alleged fundamental dishonesty be heard as a preliminary issue and the action struck out. The judge held it was…
“I FIND THAT THE CLAIM WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE CLAIMANT’S LAWYERS ON A PREMISE WHICH WAS IRRELEVANT AND WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE OR THE LAW”: WHY MUCH MORE CARE IS NEEDED IN DRAFTING SCHEDULES
We are looking again at the decision in Cojanu v Essex Partnership University NHS Trust [2022] EWHC 197 (QB). This time at the judgment in relation to quantum. The case involved a situation where the claimant’s lawyers presentation of the case…
HIGH COURT JUDGE OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AT TRIAL: “ALL CITIZENS ARE EQUALLY ENTITLED TO COME BEFORE THE COURTS IN CIVIL CLAIMS”
In Cojanu v Essex Partnership University NHS Trust [2022] EWHC 197 (QB) Mr Justice Ritchie overturned a trial judge’s findings of fundamental dishonesty. The fact that a claimant had lied about the cause of his injuries did not impact upon…
A CLAIMANT IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST WHEN THEY DON’T PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT ASKED FOR: JUDGMENT FOR £1,679,406 IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
In Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB) Anthony Metzer QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) rejected an argument that a claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. Judgment was entered for £1,679.406 instead of a finding of…
PROVING THINGS 220: ANOTHER CASE WHERE FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY NOT ESTABLISHED
In Long v Elegant Resorts Ltd [2021] EWHC 1330 (QB) HHJ Pearce, sitting as a judge of the High Court, did not accept the defendant’s contention that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. The defendant was relying on a factor…
PROVING THINGS 219: FAILING TO PROVE ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY
In Mathewson v Crump & Anor [2020] EWHC 3167 (QB) Dan Squires QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) did not accept the defendants’ submissions that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in pursuing a personal injury claim. THE…
EXAGGERATION OF INJURIES IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: HIGH COURT DECISION
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…
JUDGE ENTITLED TO FIND A CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISHONEST: IT MAY BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO DIRECT ATTENTION TO SOLICITOR RATHER THAN THE “HAPLESS CLIENT”
In Michael v I E & D Hurford Ltd (t/a Rainbow) [2021] EWHC 2318 (QB) Mrs Justice Stacey refused the defendant’s appeal in a case where the trial judge had found the claimant not to be fundamentally dishonest. The claimant…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: 76 YEAR OLD CLAIMANT SENTENCED TO 6 MONTHS IMMEDIATE IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
In One Insurance -v- Beasley (a judgment available here) a 76 year old was sentenced to six months immediate imprisonment following his dishonest pursuit of a personal injury case. “A wheelchair was hired on two occasions in order to be…
CLAIMANT WAS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: TO WHAT EXTENT CAN A DEFENDANT EXPLORE “PERIPHERAL” MATTERS WHEN MAKING ASSERTIONS OF DISHONESTY?
In Long v Elegant Resorts Ltd [2021] EWHC 1330 (QB)HHJ Pearce (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered, and rejected, an argument that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. In fact the claimant beat his own Part 36…
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…