PROVING THINGS 285: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: “IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH QOCS TO EXTEND IT TO CLAIMANTS WHO KNOWINGLY TELL UNTRUTHS ABOUT SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL TO THEIR CLAIM…”
This is a judgment on fundamental dishonesty where the judge considers, in some detail, the burden of proof and what a defendant needs to establish. There are important observations about the burden of proof and consideration of the term “dishonesty”…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 41: HAD THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY PARTICULARISED ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY?
A party alleging fraud or dishonesty cannot “ambush” their opponent at trial. Fraud must be fully particularised and pleaded. Do identical principles apply to allegations of fundamental dishonesty? In this case the judge considered an argument that points in relation…
COST BITES 312: A CHANCE TO SEE COSTS BUDGETING IN ACTION: A CASE WHERE FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY IS ALLEGED AND THE CLAIMANT IS A PROTECTED PARTY
It is always interesting to read detailed decisions about costs budgeting. They are few and far between. We have a full judgment here where the Master deals with issues such as hourly rates, the impact of allegations of dishonesty and…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND CONTEMPT OF COURT: CLAIMANT BROUGHT A FRAUDULENT £3 MILLION CLAIM: SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED
This blog has looked at cases of fundamental dishonesty many times. It has to be remembered that, more often than not, bringing dishonest claims is also contempt of court. This case deals with the appropriate sentence that should be passed…
SHOULD THE DEFENDANT BE ORDERED TO PAY THE CLAIMANT’S COSTS WHEN IT RAN AN UNSUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT AS TO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY? A HIGH COURT DECISION
There has been much debate recently about whether assertions of fundamental dishonesty have been made too readily. This case makes it clear that there may be costs consequences for those who run such arguments but who do not succeed. This…
COST BITES 294: “A DETAILED ASSESSMENT IS NOT THE FORUM TO RESCUE OR TO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE EFFECT OF A POORLY WORDED ORDER”: THE COURT WOULD NOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF POTENTIAL FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTYOF THE PRIMARY ACTION ON ASSESSMENT
Here we are looking at an attempt by a paying party defendant to raise issues of conduct, including potential fundamental dishonesty, at the assessment of costs stage. The defendant argued (or attempted to argue) that the costs judge should take…
THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: EX-SOLDIER FAILS IN HER CASE AND NOW NO LONGER HAS THE PROTECTION OF QOCS
Here we look at a case where the claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest. The judge commented on the irony of the fact that she had a substantial claim for damages, even without that dishonesty. Nevertheless the evidence of…
EXPERT WATCH 11: EXPERT ASSERTS THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS MALINGERING BUT WOULDN’T TELL THE COURT ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE TESTS THAT LED TO THAT CONCLUSION
We have seen some unusual conduct of experts on this site. However the case we look at today has elements that we have not looked at before. An expert carried out tests on the claimant and, as a result of…
A DEFENDANTS’ FIRM OF SOLICITORS COULD LAWFULLY GIVE DETAILS OF CLAIMANTS IN SIMILAR CASES WHEN DEFENDING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY CLAIMS
Here we are looking at a case where claimants brought an action claiming that their data protection rights had been breached by a defendant firm of solicitors. The defendant had collated a list of claimants who had relied on a…
DISHONEST EXAGGERATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SIGNIFICANT TO AMOUNT TO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THIS WAS DISHONEST EMBELLISHMENT TO UNDERPIN AN ESSENTIALLY HONEST CLAIM
In Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB) Mr Justice Cotter decided, by the very narrowest of margins, that the claimant’s deliberate exaggeration of her claim did not amount to fundamental dishonesty. There was some exaggeration of the effect…
FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AT TRIAL OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS WRONG TO RELY ON AN INJURY THAT DID NOT FORM PART OF THE CLAIMANT’S PLEADED CASE
I am grateful to Express Solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHK Baddeley in Robinson -v- UK Insurance Limited, a note that case and of the judgment is available here -Robinson word . HHJ Baddeley was…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” CORRESPONDENCE: JUDGE HOLDS THAT CLAIMANT’S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE
In Morris v Williams [2025] EWHC 218 (KB) District Judge Dodsworth considered the question of whether a letter from the claimant’s former solicitor, which contained proposals by the claimant to settle allegations of fundamental dishonesty, could be adduced as evidence. …
INSURER FAILS IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AFTER A COURT HAD EARLIER MADE FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY TO THE CRIMINAL STANDARD: MANY TROUBLING THINGS HERE
In Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nadeem & Anor [2024] EWHC 3445 (KB) HHJ Tindal (sitting as Judge of the High Court) dismissed an action for committal against someone who had been found to be fundamentally dishonest at a personal injury…
JUST BECAUSE I DIDN’T ACCEPT YOUR EVIDENCE THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU WERE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SAMRAI DECISION
In Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer did not make a finding of fundamental dishonesty in a case where he did not accept the claimants’ evidence. This non-acceptance did not lead to…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: FALSE EVIDENCE: A FALSE CV: “I AM ENTITLED TO REJECT THE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS BUILT UPON A FALSE FACTUAL BASIS”
I am grateful to Amy Birchall of HF solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Bird in Scully -v- Atherton (& others). The judge found that the claimant (someone who had held a number of jobs…
ANOTHER CASE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: s.57 DOES NOT APPLY TO A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT
In Andrew Reynolds v Chief Constable of Kent Police [2024] EWHC 2487 (KB) Mr Justice Sheldon found that a claim for false imprisonment was not a claim for damages for personal injury. A false imprisonment claim, therefore, was not subject to the…
A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY DOES NOT AFFECT A CLAIMANT’S RIGHT TO RECOVER PROPERTY DAMAGES
In Senay & Anor v Mulsanne Insurance Company Ltd [2024] EWCC 12 HHJ Charman found that a finding of fundamental dishonesty in a personal injury action did not affect the claimant’s rights to recover damages for the property claim to…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND WHEN CLAIMANT HAD FILED SCHEDULE WHICH WAS MISLEADING ABOUT LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM: THE CLAIMANT COULDN’T HAVE EARNED AND SHOULDN’T HAVE CLAIMED
I am grateful to the barrister Nadia Whittaker for sending me a copy of the judgment handed down today of HHJ Richard Carter in Brown -v- Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Mersey and West Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust….
WHEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND ONLINE POSTS UNDERMINE THE CLAIMANT’S CASE: FACEBOOK POSTS ON PLAYING RUGBY ARE FOUND TO BE BINDING
Many cases emphasise the importance of social media in litigation. It has become an essential tool in the armoury of many litigators. An example can be seen in the judge of Mr Justice Mould in Wye Valley NHS Trust v…
PERSONAL INJURY: EXAGGERATED CLAIMS: CONTEMPT OF COURT: RUGBY, LIFTING WEIGHTS AND… SOCIAL MEDIA
In Wye Valley NHS Trust v Murphy [2024] EWHC 1912 (KB) Mr Justice Mould found the defendant in contempt of court for exaggerating the extent of his injuries when bringing a claim for damages for personal injury. An interesting aspect…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE: THE CLAIMANT “HAS ONLY HIMSELF TO BLAME” IN LOSING £1.2 MILLION IN DAMAGES
I am grateful to barrister Matthew Snarr for sending me a better copy of the judgments of HHJ Sephton KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Shaw -v- Wilde, a copy of that judgment is available here Shaw v Wilde Final…
YOU SIGNED IT – YOU OWN IT: CLAIMANT IN £1.2 MILLION CLAIM FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND RECOVERS NOTHING
I am grateful to barrister Matthew Snarr for sending me a copy of the judgments of HHJ Sephton KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Shaw -v- Wilde, copies of those judgments are available here shaw-v-wilde-judgment . I will…
CLAIMANT FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: EXAGGERATING SYMPTOMS IS PLAINLY DISHONEST
We are returning to the judgment of HHJ Karen Walden-Smith in Hamed -v- Ministry of Justice (County Court in Cambridge – 7th June 2024). The judge found that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in the presentation of their symptoms. This…
AN EXPERT WHO SHOULD LEARN THE RULES BEFORE REPORTING AGAIN: CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF
We are taking a short break from the detailed examination of issues relating to service of the claim form to look at another common issue on this blog – an expert that failed to comply with the rules. I am…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY COST CLAIMANT £325,000 IN DEFENCE COSTS EVEN AFTER THE CLAIM HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED
I am grateful to Louise Jackson from Clyde & Co for drawing my attention to her piece about a recent settlement in a case where fundamental dishonesty was alleged. This is not a case that got to trial. However it…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: “SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE” CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In the judgment given today in Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed the claimant’s claim as being fundamentally dishonest. The judgment contains a detailed consideration of the issues relating to the…
TRIAL JUDGE’S FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY OVERTURNED: BECAUSE THE DISHONESTY WAS NOT “FUNDAMENTAL”
In Denzil v Mohammed & Anor [2023] EWHC 2077 (KB) Mr Justice Freedman overturned a finding by a trial judge that a claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. The finding that a minor head injury which was not part of the…
ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FAILED: MANY OF THE ASSERTIONS DID NOT GO “TO THE HEART OF THE CLAIM”
In Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London [2023] EWHC 1632 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill rejected the defendant’s twelve allegations of fundamental dishonesty made against a claimant. Some of the assertions were rejected because they did not…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: SOCIAL MEDIA, SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE AND A LONG WALK
I am grateful to Legal Executive Vanessa Brooks for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Harrison in Thomas -v- Owen (21st March 2023, Cardiff County Court). It is another example of social media playing a part in…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND: “GOOD DAYS AND BAD DAYS” DID NOT PERSUADE THE COURT
I am grateful to barrister Andrew Ward for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Eyre which was handed down earlier this afternoon. In Mantey -v- Ministry of Defenchttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/761.htmle [2023] EWHC 761 (KB) a finding of fundamental…
JUDGMENT OF A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY – BUT THIS CASE GOES MUCH FURTHER: COLLUSION IS FOUND
Here we are looking at a case where 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…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.