News

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...

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.