4th September, 2019

Jamie Hill obtains finding of fundamental dishonesty

The matter of J v A revolved around a road traffic accident that occurred in November 2017.  The Claimant, his wife and children all submitted CNFs to A in May 2018, claiming they had suffered personal injury. However when the Claim Form was issued in November 2018 the Claimant proceeded alone.

In the prosecution of his claim no witness evidence was obtained from the Claimant's wife, despite her being identified as a witness in the DQs. In the absence of a credible explanation for her failure, the Judge was persuaded to draw an adverse inference.

Having heard extensive cross examination of the Claimant, the Judge concluded that he was fundamentally dishonest.  The gross inconsistencies in relation to the route the Claimant had intended to take, the injuries he allegedly sustained and the effects of the same could not be reconciled.  The only credible explanation for them was that the Claimant was making his evidence up as he was going along.

The Claimant's claim was accordingly dismissed and he was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs of defending the matter.

Jamie Hill is developing a strong insurance fraud practice.  His profile, which details further recent cases, can be found HERE.



Latest News...

Further Ranking Success for 9 St John Street in Chambers UK Bar Directory 2025

18th October, 2024
9 St John Street Chambers are delighted to announce we have received further recognition in the Chambers UK Bar Guide 2025. Our Employment, Personal Injury, Crime, Family, Real Estate Litigation, and Chancery teams have been acknowledged as leading sets within the Northern Circuit.

Chambers UK Bar 2025 Listings for 9 St John Street

18th October, 2024
Following the release of the 2025 edition of Chambers UK Bar, with an outstanding amount of 29 individual rankings, our barristers continue to be recognised as leaders in their field across a wide range of practice areas.

James Hurd secures strike out of unfair dismissal claim on the basis of doctrine of frustration.

7th October, 2024
I recently acted for the Respondent in the case of Rayner v MOD in the Bristol Employment Tribunal (03 October 2024). The case was unusual for two reasons. Firstly, the Claimant lacked capacity and a Litigation Friend was appointed in accordance with the guidance in Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Limited (Practice & Procedure) (2017) UKEAT 0062/17.