A woman claiming damages for personal injury has had her case dismissed due to being fundamentally dishonest.
The case of Williams-Henry v Associated Auckland Ports Holdings, saw the claimant almost being awarded £2.5 million – but she received nothing beyond the payments already received throughout the litigation process (totalling £75,000). Liability had been determined and only the value of the claim remained in issue.
The Court assessed the value of the Claimant’s claim at just below £600,000; however, she was telling repeated untruths about her injuries to seek more. The claimant was posting on her social media about attending the Spice Girls reunion, going on holiday to Zante, and attending Auckland’s Winter Wonderland. Contrary to what was being told, the claimant was also not, in fact, using a walking stick or having balance issues.
Mr Justice Ritchie, the judge on trial stated:
“the claimant was wholly unrepentant when she gave evidence and had sought, in parallel, to defraud the DWP and L&G insurance about her disabilities”.
In spite of this, the judge did not order the claimant to repay her interim payments of £75,000, as it could ‘be an injustice to the Claimant because she would then be homeless, jobless, depressed and suicidal’.
To date, this dismissal is one of the largest since the Fundamental Dishonesty rule was established under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
What is Fundamental Dishonesty?
Fundamental Dishonesty, ruled by Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, is aimed at deterring fraudulent or exaggerated injuries under personal injury claims. Examples include being ‘unable’ to carry out a specific task since the accident (when in actual fact, you can), providing information that is untrue, or there being inconsistencies in the evidence provided.
The burden is on the Defendant to establish dishonesty. Defendants may carry out surveillance to gather evidence of a Claimant being ‘dishonest’ or gathering social media posts or eyewitnesses. The test was set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos Limited (2018), where the Court considered;
(1) what the actual state of the claimant’s belief or knowledge was; and
(2) if a dishonest state of mind is established, whether the conduct of the individual was dishonest in accordance with the standards of ordinary decent people.
Statement of Truth
During a personal injury claim, you will probably be asked to sign a Statement of Truth. The Civil Procedure Rules. Practice Direction 22 sets out the wording that should be used, confirming the writer believes the facts stated are true and that if it the statement is found to be untrue, the writer could be found to be in contempt of Court.
Signing the statement of truth when the statement is untrue is another example of being fundamentally dishonest. This was reinforced in the case of Shaw v Wilde (2024) where the Judge argued:
“the form of the Statement of Truth has been altered so that a person who verifies a document appreciates the serious consequences of verifying without an honest belief in its truth…The Court is entitled to expect that a person who verifies a document understands it and has an honest belief that what he is verifying is true.”
Consequences
Claimants who are found to have been fundamentally dishonest could find themselves facing the following consequences:
- They become liable to pay legal costs for both sides – Usually, under the Qualified One-way Costs Shifting (QOCS) principle, claimants do not bear liability of cost in personal injury claims. However, if a claimant is found to be fundamentally dishonest, then QOCS protection is lost. If a claim is fundamentally dishonest, the claimant loses protection under QOCS and is required to pay the legal costs on both sides.
- The case is dismissed – If a claimant is found to have been fundamentally dishonest, the judge may dismiss their personal injury case altogether. This can even happen in cases where the claim is otherwise genuine but contains elements of dishonesty. This could also mean the claimant loses the right to raise the same kind of claim in a Court of law in the future.
- Prosecution – In extreme cases, the claimant could even be prosecuted for perjury/contempt of court.
Therefore, it is vital that a Claimant is completely honest when describing their symptoms and that any document signed by the Claimant with a statement of truth is accurate and contains no exaggeration; if not, the consequences can be severe.
This article is for information only and does not constitute legal/financial advice. Please contact us for advice tailored to your specific position. Some of the content presented on our website has been generated with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We ensure that all AI-generated content meets our high standards for accuracy and relevance.
