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. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Fundamental Dishonesty
JUDGMENT OF A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY  - BUT THIS CASE GOES MUCH FURTHER: COLLUSION IS FOUND

JUDGMENT OF A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY – BUT THIS CASE GOES MUCH FURTHER: COLLUSION IS FOUND

February 23, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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

CLAIMANT FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT A BICYCLE

July 21, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty

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

CLAIMANT LIED ABOUT “JOB OFFER”: FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND LOSES £130,000

July 15, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Fundamental Dishonesty

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

“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

June 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury, Uncategorized

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

COURT ALLOWS CLAIMANT’S APPEAL AGAINST FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE ISSUES AND MADE ITS CASE CLEAR

March 31, 2022 · by gexall · in Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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

THE COURTS WILL RARELY DETERMINE ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

March 6, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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

“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

February 3, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty

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”

February 2, 2022 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Fundamental Dishonesty

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

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

January 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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

PROVING THINGS 220: ANOTHER CASE WHERE FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY NOT ESTABLISHED

December 7, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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

PROVING THINGS 219: FAILING TO PROVE ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY

December 6, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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

EXAGGERATION OF INJURIES IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: HIGH COURT DECISION

September 17, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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"

JUDGE ENTITLED TO FIND A CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISHONEST: IT MAY BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO DIRECT ATTENTION TO SOLICITOR RATHER THAN THE “HAPLESS CLIENT”

August 17, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: 76 YEAR OLD CLAIMANT SENTENCED TO 6 MONTHS IMMEDIATE IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

July 14, 2021 · by gexall · in Committal proceedings, Fundamental Dishonesty

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?

CLAIMANT WAS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: TO WHAT EXTENT CAN A DEFENDANT EXPLORE “PERIPHERAL” MATTERS WHEN MAKING ASSERTIONS OF DISHONESTY?

May 19, 2021 · by gexall · in Damages, Fundamental 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

A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: SOCIAL MEDIA, SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE AND INACCURATE STATEMENTS LEAD TO CLAIMANT LOSING £44,890

May 11, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury, Witness statements

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"

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”

April 20, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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

DEFENDANT NOT PERMITTED TO PLEAD FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ON A SPECULATIVE OR CONTINGENT BASIS

April 9, 2021 · by gexall · in Amendment, Fundamental Dishonesty, Statements of Case

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

CLAIMANT WHO GAVE MISLEADING ACCOUNT OF HER INJURIES FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST

March 19, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Witness statements

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

March 13, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Webinar, Witness statements

 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…

1 2 3 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. 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 31,388 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WHAT TO DO IF THE DEFENDANT MAKES AN EARLY PART 36 OFFER: WEBINAR 30th MARCH 2023
  • MAKE UNJUSTIFIED ALLEGATIONS IN A LETTER OF CLAIM AT YOUR PERIL – YOU CAN PAY THE COSTS: ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS
  • AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE: THE ESSENTIAL POINT THAT THEY MUST BE IN WRITING
  • APRIL 5th IS AN IMPORTANT DATE: WHAT IS MEANT BY “ISSUED” IN THE CONTEXT OF CHANGES TO QOCS?
  • A LITIGANT CAN “APPEAR” AT A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK HEARING BY THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

Top Posts & Pages

  • A LITIGANT CAN "APPEAR" AT A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK HEARING BY THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
  • APRIL 5th IS AN IMPORTANT DATE: WHAT IS MEANT BY "ISSUED" IN THE CONTEXT OF CHANGES TO QOCS?
  • AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE: THE ESSENTIAL POINT THAT THEY MUST BE IN WRITING
  • MAKE UNJUSTIFIED ALLEGATIONS IN A LETTER OF CLAIM AT YOUR PERIL - YOU CAN PAY THE COSTS: ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS
  • PART 36, COSTS: THE JUDGE WAS CORRECT NOT TO FIND THAT PART 36 CONSEQUENCES SHOULD NOT APPLY: A DISPUTE "CONDUCTED IN AN ENTIRELY DISPROPORTIONATE WAY AND AT ENTIRELY DISPROPORTIONATE COST"

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

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • 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 © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin