News

19th July, 2019

Jamie Hill Establishes Claims Brought By 3 Claimants Are Fundamentally Dishonesty

Jamie Hill was instructed by the Defendant Insurer in the matter of S and others v S.  All 3 Claimants alleged that they had suffered various soft tissue injuries as a result of a collision in a car park.  The said collision was captured on CCTV.  The Defendant Insurer had the footage examined by an expert who opined that the collision was at no more than 3mph and that accordingly, it was extremely unlikely that personal injury could have been occasioned.

The Judge accepted the expert evidence and found that all 3 of the Claimant’s cases were riddled with inconsistency and contradiction.  Ultimately the Judge was satisfied that all 3 Claimants were making up their evidence as they were going along and that accordingly there could be no hesitation in a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

The Defendant was awarded its costs of defending the action, which exceeded £10,500.

Jamie continues to expand his insurance fraud practice. Please see here for his updated profile and CV.



Latest News...

Hearsay and the Criminal Procedure Rules article - Jonathan Savage

30th June, 2020
Jonathan Savage provides this useful summary of the recent decision in R -v- Smith EWCA Crim 777, which served as a useful reminder of the importance of adhering the Criminal Procedure Rules when seeking to adduce hearsay evidence.

ZXC v Bloomberg - right to anonymity for suspects of criminal investigations - Adam White

30th June, 2020
Adam White, our current criminal pupil, analyses the recent authority of ZXC v Bloomberg and the issue of whether the suspects of criminal investigations should be subject to anonymity.

Sentencing Council Guidance on Covid 19 – Robert Smith

30th June, 2020
Following a recent statement from the Sentencing Council, Robert Smith provides a short summary of how sentencing courts should take the current pandemic into account when sentencing offenders.