News Category 3
Staged/Contrived Accidents: The Fraud of Choice? - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom
27/01/14. Chapter 2 of 'RTA Allegations of Fraud in a Post-Jackson Era: The Handbook' by Andrew Mckie. Spotting the Warning Signs. An alleged staged and/or contrived accident, may be defined as an attempt by an individual, or a group of individuals, in order to obtain monies by either by submitting a claim to an insurance company for an accident which did not occur, ie a contrived accident, or deliberately crashing vehicles into each other on purpose, for the purposes of making claims for compensation.
There are a number of potential indicators of a staged and/or contrived accident and these may be broadly summarised as follows:-
-
The policyholder’s vehicle is of a low value.
-
Multiple occupancy vehicles.
-
The accident happens late at night or in a remote location.
-
There is no Police, ambulance or attendance of the fire brigade.
-
There are no witnesses to the accident or witnesses who can independently verify the circumstances of the accident.
-
There are multiple ...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/JamesHarrison
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only), or click below to purchase the book.
Editorial: The Aftermath of Mitchell - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
16/01/14. A simple search on any database will reveal that, as all commentators predicted, the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 has already been cited by many Courts in rejecting various applications for relief from sanctions. One prominent example is that in Durrant v Chief Constable for Avon & Somerset Constabulary [2013] EWCA Civ 1624, the Court of Appeal applied Mitchell to refuse relief from sanctions to allow the Defendant to rely on witness statements which had been served late. Two of the witness statements had been received at 1pm on 13 March rather than 4pm on 12 March as the unless order required. Though this default might itself have been regarded as trivial, the Court of Appeal still refused relief primarily because the application for relief had not been made promptly...
Image cc David Dixon
Two Recent CFA Cases: Effect of a Failure to Serve a Notice of Funding and Powers of the Ombudsman - Thomas Crockett, 1 Chancery Lane
11/01/14. There have been two recent decisions concerning Conditional Fee Agreements which should be of interest to any practitioner practising in any area of the law where such funding arrangements are prevalent. The first is Harrision & Anor v Black Horse (20/12/13, Sen Cts Office per Maser Gordon-Saker), where the strict application of the Mitchell judgment was applied to a case where relief was sought by a CFA-funded party for its failure to serve a Notice of Funding.
Whilst previously such a common default was excused by courts on the basis that the strict sanction for this failure (the irrecoverability of any additional liabilities, namely: uplift and ATE premium) was disproportionate to the nature of the default, now it seems that such parties cannot expect such lenience...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/pawel.gaul
The True Cost of Change - Lianne Naughton, 7 Harrington Street Chambers
10/01/14. The year 2013 saw an amazing change in the legal landscape. Some might say for the better. Most would not. The introduction of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 following Lord Justice Jackson’s review of the Civil Procedure Rules swept in in April. Prior to its introduction Lord Justice Jackson made it clear that a sweeping change to CPR 3.9 Relief from Sanctions was at the heart of the revolution. Compliance with Rules and Court Orders was intransigent.
In his 18th implementation lecture, he stated
“Doing justice in each set of proceedings is to ensure that proceedings are dealt with justly and at proportionate cost. Justice in the individual case is now only achievable through the proper application of the CPR consistently with the overriding objective… Parties can no longer expect indulgence if they fail to comply with their procedural obligations. Those obligations not only serve the purpose of ensuring that they conduct the litigation proportionately in order to ensure their own costs are kept within proportionate bounds. But more importantly they serve the wider public interest of ensuring that other litigants can obtain justice efficiently and proportionately, and that the court...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/sodafish
Mesothelioma Bill: Latest Comments on Today’s Third Reading - Jamie Hanley, Pattinson & Brewer
07/01/14. Today, Parliament considers the third reading of the Mesothelioma Bill and so I thought it would be appropriate to update on my last comment, which coincided with the second reading of the Bill. I support this Bill. It originates from a consultation launched by the previous Labour Government and follows what is a long history of interventions by the Labour Party, and the wider Trade Union movement to secure justice for mesothelioma victims. However, I remain concerned that the Bill does not go far enough for the victims of this fatal disease, and I believe that the reason for this is the current Government’s relationship with the powerful Insurance lobby. I hope the Government proves me wrong. They would do so by supporting the following amendments to the Bill:
1. The level of payments should be increased beyond the current proposed 75% of average compensation. There is no justification for mesothelioma sufferers, who are mainly victims of our industrial past, to receive a substantially lower level of...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/stozka
More Articles...
- The Icing on the Cake: Proximity Needed to Establish a Duty - Ivor Collett, 1 Chancery Lane
- Motorcyclists: Overtaking the Queue and Junctions, Jones v Lawton [2013] EWHC 4108 (QB) - Pankaj Madan, Exchange Chambers & 12 King’s Bench Walk
- When Defendants Treat Us Like Fools - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers
- 'Plebgate', Budgets, Relief From Sanctions and a New Kind of Justice - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
![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)
