News

4th July, 2019

Ben Morris secures findings of fundamental dishonesty and an enforceable costs order pursuant to CPR 44.16

In A & R v Aviva Insurance two Claimants advanced claims for personal injury and loss following a road traffic accident in 2017. 

The First Claimant claimed that the vehicle that she had been driving, and in which the other Claimant was a passenger, was turning into a side road when the Defendant’s insured emerged from that side road and into the Claimants' correctly proceeding vehicle.  Breach of duty was admitted.  The Claimants contended that as a consequence they suffered multiple soft tissue injuries lasting many months. 

The Court found that the accident was capable of causing injury and that indeed the Claimants may well have been injured.  However, following cross examination, the Court was unable to determine what those injuries were and moreover found that the Claimants had dishonestly exaggerated the nature and extent of any injury suffered.  The Claimants were found to be fundamentally dishonest and the Defendant was awarded enforceable costs on the indemnity basis.

Ben's profile, including further details of his insurance fraud practice, can be viewed here.



Latest News...

Nigel Booth takes up position at the University of Law in Manchester

7th August, 2020
On 1st September 2020 Nigel Booth will be taking up a position at the University of Law in Manchester tutoring criminal litigation, evidence and sentencing on the Bar Vocational Course.

Divisional Court ruling in relation to the Article 2 Inquest re: Dawn Sturgess

31st July, 2020
Divisional Court addresses the issue of the ruling of the Senior Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon on the scope of the Article 2 inquest conducted into the death of Dawn Sturgess.

Vanessa Thomson summarises the case of R v Jason Lawrance

29th July, 2020
Vanessa Thomson has summarised the case of R. v. Jason Lawrance where the Court of Appeal gave consideration to the question of deception and the vitiation of consent. Does a lie by a defendant, that he is infertile, negate ostensible consent given by a complainant?