News Category 2
Collateral Lies & Fundamental Dishonesty - Aidan O'Brien, Farrar's Building
11/10/16. Personal Injury practitioners would be well advised to heed the recent Supreme Court decision in Versloot Dredging BV & anor v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG & ors [2016] UKSC 45, relating to ‘collateral lies’ and ‘the fraudulent claim rule’.
Versloot involveda ship-owner who appealed against a decision that insurers should be allowed to repudiate a claim made under a policy of marine insurance as a consequence of ‘collateral lies’. The claim related to the flooding of a ship’s engine room, causing damage in excess of €3 million. The ship-owner initially claimed that the flooding had occurred because the crew had been unable to deal with a leak due to the rolling of the ship in heavy weather. It later transpired that this account was fabricated and that the flooding was caused by the crew’s failure to close a sea inlet valve, the failings of contractors to appropriately seal bulkheads and faults in the engine room pumping system.
The true cause of the flooding fell to be defined as a ‘peril of the seas’, and as such, was covered by the insurance policy. The ship-owner’s initial falsehood was therefore irrelevant to the merits of the claim. Despite this, the Court of Appeal determined that the ship-owner’s initial account constituted a fraudulent device and thereby entitled the insurer to avoid the claim.
On appeal, the majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Mance dissenting) determined that...
Image: public domain via pixabay.com/en/barent-zanen-dredge-ship-ship-895161/
Part 36 in Personal Injury Claims - Matthew Rose, Clarion Solicitors
10/10/16. I was recently instructed in relation to an RTA claim in which, following submission of the claim notification, form the defendant had written to the claimant stating that it had LVI concerns which, it said, required further investigation. The claimant thereafter wrote to the defendant confirming that due to the concerns raised, the matter was no longer suitable for the portal and therefore the matter had exited the portal pursuant to the paragraph 7.76 of the RTA Protocol.
The matter proceeded and ultimately settled by way of Part 36 following the issue of proceedings but before a case management conference.
The claimant sent a schedule to the defendant setting out the relevant costs with Table B under CPR 45.29A.
The defendant responded by stating that the fact that LVI was raised was not sufficient justification for the matter to exit the portal, that liability was admitted and that therefore the matter should have remained within the portal and the court should restrict the claimant to portal costs...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/stu99
Contempt of Court: A Strong Message to the Opportunistic Fraudster - Caroline Sanders, DWF
30/09/16. A personal injury claimant who alleged his wrist injury had been caused by a trip on a raised kerbstone, has been found in contempt of court in respect of his personal injury claim against Surrey County Council and sentenced to a 12 month suspended custodial sentence. The Council, together with DWF, took a firm stance against the claimant when it was revealed that he had admitted to a friend on Facebook that he had been drinking and had in fact merely slipped in icy conditions. Caroline Sanders reviews the evidence in this case which stands to deter the opportunistic fraudster.
Background
Mr Wootton had pursued a personal injury claim against Surrey County Council, concerning an alleged tripping incident on 3 December 2010 on Napier Road, Staines which resulted in a fracture to his wrist. The defect identified was a raised kerbstone measuring just in excess of 1 inch. The case had proceeded as a standard highways tripping case with no fraud indicators at all, proceeding through to listing stage in unremarkable fashion.
Mr Wootton relied on his own evidence and supporting statements from two friends, Mr and Mrs Harris, who had been accompanying him home on the material evening. Mr Wootton gave a detailed account of his trip and the aftermath with both supporting witnesses confirming they saw him fall forward and that “there was nothing else [other than the raised kerbstone] that could have caused Mr Wootton to fall”. All three were at pains to stress that Mr Wootton had had only minimal alcohol and that he “was not a heavy drinker”. With alcohol consumption having not featured at all in the case before exchange of witness statements, DWF questioned this and undertook social media enquiries for any potential relevant content. It was from there, the civil claim unravelled...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Carder v The University of Exeter - Aliyah Akram, 12 King's Bench Walk
26/09/16. The Court of Appeal decided that a defendant was liable to compensate a claimant for a 2.3% contribution to his asbestosis in Carder v The University of Exeter [2016] EWCA Civ 790.
Mr Carder was exposed to asbestos throughout his working life and as a result developed asbestosis. The majority of his exposure was while working with a company called Colston Electrical Company Ltd. Since that company could not be traced a claim was pursued against The University of Exeter who had contributed to 2.3% of Mr Carder’s total exposure.
Mr Carder’s exposure with the University came from his work as a maintenance electrician. The University admitted liability but sought to defend the claim on the basis that it had not caused any additional damage to Mr Carder.
It was agreed that the University’s 2.3% contribution to Mr Carder’s total exposure had made a 2.3% contribution to his asbestosis. The University argued however that it had not caused actionable damage because although that contribution was material it was...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/alfiofer
Driver Who Supported Phantom Passengers Loses His Claim Under Section 57 - Daniel Holbrook, DWF
29/09/16. A claimant who was awarded his claim for vehicle damage following a road accident, subsequently had his claim dismissed in accordance with Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The Court found that he had been fundamentally dishonest in supporting the claims of two claimants who had alleged that they had been passengers in his vehicle. The Court found that those claimants were not in fact in his vehicle at the time of the accident.
DWF Associate, Daniel Holbrook, who dealt with the case on behalf of RSA, reviews the background to the case and how the Court came to conclude that the Claimant should forfeit his claim.
Related claims and Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act (“CJCA”) became law on 13 April 2015 and applies to all claims for personal injury, where proceedings were issued on or after that date. The first three subsections state:
(1) This section applies where, in proceedings on a claim for damages in respect of personal injury (“the primary claim”)...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/RobertCrum
More Articles...
- PI Practitioner, September 2016
- Today’s News From the MoJ of Their Future Vision Offers Pointers for Insurers Towards the Swifter and Cheaper Handling of Claims - Simon Denyer, DWF
- Getting Your Hands on an Undisclosed Expert Report and More - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
- What Price Parenthood? - Chris Thorne, Clarke Willmott LLP
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
