Fundamental Dishonesty: Appeal Against Low Speed Damages Award Gets Green Light

The High Court dismissed a low speed impact claim on appeal for fundamental dishonesty. It was found that the Judge at first instance had adopted "a much too benevolent approach to evidence from a claimant which could be demonstrated to be inconsistent, unreliable and, on occasions, simply untruthful."

The Claimant had made several inconsistent statements from the Claims Notification Form onwards, and whilst the first instance judge had taken this into consideration, the Claimant was still awarded damages.

On appeal, the High Court found that it was entitled to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty pursuant to section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act despite the fact that the Defendant had not sought to plead such an allegation.

Background

The Claimant and the Defendant were involved in a low speed collision. The Claimant alleged he had suffered soft tissue injuries. The matter came to Trial before HHJ Main QC in April 2016.

The Claimant made the following inconsistent presentations throughout the progression of the claim:

The Claimant had failed to disclose at least 4 previous accidents) to the medical expert; Contradictory evidence as to whether the Claimant had a passenger The Claimant made a claim for physiotherapy despite the CNF stating he had no rehabilitation needs The Claimant asserted in the CNF that he had no time off work, stated he had been absent for a period within his witness statement, yet made no claim for loss of earnings A vehicle damage claim was submitted for £1,300 when the Claimant had his vehicle repaired for £400 Nonetheless, HHJ Main QC addressed the weaknesses within the evidence provided by the Claimant, yet went on to make an award of £4,397, including £2,750 for general damages.

The Defendant appealed.

High Court

The appeal was allowed and the claim dismissed with a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

The Defendant submitted that it was not precluded from alleging fundamental dishonesty despite a failure to plead fraud or dishonesty with reference to the recent decision of Howlett v Davies & Anor. The Defendant also referred to the decision in Gosling v Screwfix in which the judge "held that exaggeration alone can give rise to a finding of fundamental dishonesty."

The Defendant...