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…
CLAIMANTS WERE NOT CREDIBLE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL SUCCESSFUL: “THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED AN ANSWERABLE CASE THAT THE CLAIMANTS FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE”
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
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”
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
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
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
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…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE PAST 12 MONTHS: A ROUND UP
On May 10th last year I did a round up of cases and commentary on the issue of fundamental dishonesty. Here we look at cases and commentary in the past 12 months. CASES Most of the cases are inevitably first…
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: NOW THERE REALLY IS ONE LAW FOR THE RICH: THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR CLAIMANT LAWYERS
There has been much debate about the impact of the “fundamental dishonesty” law. One practical effect it must have, however, is to ensure that claimant lawyers consider and explain the importance of the witness statement. THE ISSUE The problem with…
"FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY" A ROUND UP OF CASES & COMMENTARY
The earlier post on the procedural aspects of “fundamental” dishonesty led to the most visitors to the blog in a weekend ever. Here we look at posts, articles, comments and cases in relation to the concept of fundamental dishonesty. REPORTED…
"FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY" AND STRIKING OUT IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES: TEN KEY PROCEDURAL POINTS
The rule as to “fundamental” dishonesty has attracted a lot of attraction (and a lot of heated debate). However there has been very little examination of the details of the Act and the consequent procedural implications. There are 10 key…