Kirsty Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd
[2024] EWHC 806 (KB)
Attique Denzil v Usman Mohammed & Anor
10 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2077 (KB)
High Court
Someone claimed to be hurt in a car accident and lied about a minor head injury that wasn't even part of their official claim. A judge said this lie was a big enough deal to throw out the whole case. But a higher court said the lie was too small and unimportant to do that, so they let the case continue.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a finding of fundamental dishonesty by His Honour Judge Khan.
- •Appellant claimed injuries (neck, back, head) from a road traffic accident on 28 January 2019.
- •Respondent denied the accident occurred.
- •Judge found the accident occurred but the appellant was fundamentally dishonest about a head injury.
- •The head injury was not mentioned in the Claim Notification Form (CNF), medical report, or Particulars of Claim.
- •Appellant's evidence regarding the head injury contained inconsistencies.
- •Judge dismissed the claim under section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 2015.
- •Appellant argued the dishonesty was not fundamental to the claim.
- •Respondent argued the dishonesty, even if relating to a minor injury, was fundamental.
Legal Principles
Fundamental dishonesty requires dishonesty that goes to the root of the claim.
Courts and Legal Services Act 2015, section 57
Dishonesty is judged subjectively (claimant's state of mind) and objectively (ordinary person's standards).
Ivey v Genting Casinos Limited [2017] UKSC 67
Fundamental dishonesty in QOCS cases distinguishes between dishonesty that is fundamental and dishonesty that is incidental or collateral.
Gosling v Hailo (unreported), adopted in Howlett v Davies [2018] 1 WLR 948
Fundamental dishonesty means substantial and material dishonesty going to the heart of the claim (liability or quantum).
LOCOG v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB), citing various County Court cases
A claimant is fundamentally dishonest if dishonesty substantially affects the presentation of their case, potentially adversely affecting the defendant significantly.
LOCOG v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB)
Appellate courts should not interfere with a trial judge's findings of fact unless there is a clear flaw in reasoning.
Fage (UK) v Charbani [2014] EWCA Civ 4
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The judge's finding of fundamental dishonesty was not adequately reasoned. The dishonesty regarding the unpleaded, minor head injury did not go to the root of the claim.
Finding of fundamental dishonesty set aside.
The minor, short-lived head injury, not included in the claim, did not substantially affect the presentation of the case.