11th February, 2019

Amy Rollings secures two findings of fundamental dishonesty in four weeks

In R, a holiday illness claim, Amy successfully argued that the Claimant was fundamentally dishonest.  The finding principally related to the Claimant dishonestly stating that she had not been on excursions, when the Judge found she had been on at least four.  In addition there were numerous Facebook entries suggesting exaggeration of symptoms. 

In P, after having numerous inconsistencies exposed during cross examination, the Claimant was found to have brought a false holiday illness claim.  Most instructive was that P had not made any contemporaneous complaint of illness despite filling out questionnaires and completing online reviews whilst allegedly suffering symptoms.

In both cases Amy secured enforceable costs orders for the Defendant.

Amy Rollings' profile and contact information can be viewed here.



Latest News...

The judgment of the Supreme Court in TUI v Griffiths regarding 'uncontroverted' expert evidence: nuclear bomb or damp squib?

29th November, 2023
William Hamilton and Beth Caunce review this Supreme Court decision which concerns the correct approach to "uncontroverted" expert evidence, here in the context of a travel sickness claim, but with broader ramifications regarding the procedural fairness of refraining from cross-examining an expert or relying on one’s own expert and waiting instead to criticise that expert’s opinion in closing submissions.

"Don't discuss the case with anyone until your evidence has finished" (we really mean it!)

28th November, 2023
Rachael Levene and Louise Quigley successfully got a multi-day claim of race discrimination struck out after the Claimant failed to heed the warning of not discussing the case until her evidence was complete.

Pupillage Gateway, open to view adverts

27th November, 2023
Today we launch our adverts for pupillage in the Criminal, Family, Employment and Personal Injury teams.