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...