Practitioner's Update: Mustard v Flower & Ors [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) - Harry Peto, Temple Garden Chambers
19/04/21. This case arose out of a road traffic accident. One of the Defendants (“the Defendant”) applied to amend its Defence to allege fundamental dishonesty (“FD”) and that the Claimant consciously or subconsciously was exaggerating her injuries.
The Claimant opposed this amendment on the grounds that this amounted to an allegation of fraud which was not properly particularised and for which there was no basis in evidence, contrary to Rule 9 of the BSB Code of Conduct. The Defendant’s response was that there was no positive averment of dishonesty but a mere alerting of the nature of the Defendant’s case at trial: it intended to explore in cross-examination whether the claimant was consciously exaggerating her symptoms for gain.
The Law
s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 provides that, where a claimant claiming for personal injury is fundamentally dishonest in relation to the primary claim or a related claim, the court must dismiss the primary claim unless the claimant would suffer substantial injustice if the claim were dismissed. The dismissal includes any...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/bedo
