This site uses cookies.

Legal Mind Case and Commentary No 9: Dishonesty: Where is the Line? - Dr Hugh Koch & Dr Jon Willows

01/09/16. Case: Churchill Care Insurance v Kelly (2006). EWHC.IP(QB). Aspects of a bona fide personal injury claim can be prone to exaggeration or magnification to increase the overall award. The implication for experts to highlight unreliability or even untruthfulness is discussed below. This is the ninth in a series of case reports and commentaries from Dr Koch and his colleagues and follows an earlier analysis by Hormaeche (2007). 

The claim for road traffic accident related injuries resulted in damages initially being awarded, despite the defendant’s contention that employment absence and its attribution rested on erroneous claimant evidence.

On appeal, fresh evidence of fraud by the claimant led to Gibbs J granting permission to appeal the original Recorder’s judgement. The appellant contested that the entirety of the claim should be disallowed as an ‘abuse of process’ and a ‘matter of public policy’. Gibbs J indicated a difficulty in deciding where to draw the line in cases involving dishonesty, suggesting it was not uncommon for believing a claimant on one issue but not on another. The correct approach, in his view, would be...

Image ©

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.