Friday, February 16, 2007

Should fraud unravel everything?

In Churchill Insurance v Kelly, a claim arising out of a liability admitted road traffic accident, Gibbs J found that the Claimant had been dishonest (including perjuring himself) in his presentation of his loss of earnings claim. The deceit was bad enough that he also disallowed the personal injury claim because it hinged on the Claimant's credibility. The Claimant was also penalised in costs. However he was allowed to recover the cost of repairs to his car.

But should a person who has abused the process of the court by bringing a fraudulent claim recover anything at all? Fraud is a growth industry in the UK. Road traffic insurers find themselves beset with a growing number of fraudulent claims ranging from staged accidents to claims from imaginary passengers. Surely in these circumstances, there is a public interest in the courts taking a hard line and holding once and for all that fraud unravel everything.


BabyBarista said...

How far do you think this principle should extend?

The Barrister Blog said...

That BabyBarista is the question.

By the way, you have a great blog there. Just started reading it from the beginning.

Anonymous said...

Should a claimant's credibility really be attacked to such an extent?.

accident at work said...

im a personal injury lawyer and i agree with you mate. Anybody trying to fraud the system should get nothing. I generally represent industrial accident cases and there is enough work in my field without jokers taking the biscuit