AXA Insurance UK PLC v Fatjon Kryeziu & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3233 (KB)
EUI Limited (t/a Admiral) v Vaughn Smith
6 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2803 (KB)
High Court
An insurer sued an engineer for a report that falsely claimed a motorcycle was beyond repair after a minor accident. The judge said there was enough evidence to go to trial. The insurer was also allowed to slightly change their legal documents to make their case clearer, as it was not too late to do so.
Key Facts
- •EUI Ltd (insurer) brought a Part 20 claim against Vaughn Smith (engineer) for a dishonest expert report.
- •The report stated a motorcycle was 'Beyond Economical Repair' after an accident.
- •EUI alleged the motorcycle suffered minor damage and remained driveable, and Smith's report was dishonest.
- •Smith applied to strike out the claim or for summary judgment, which was refused by HHJ Saunders.
- •Smith appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of dishonesty.
- •EUI applied to amend its Part 20 Particulars of Claim.
Legal Principles
On a strike-out application, the facts pleaded must be assumed true, but the court scrutinises allegations of dishonesty carefully.
Sofer v Swissindependent Trustees SA
Summary judgment should not be granted if the claimant has a realistic prospect of success; a mini-trial should be avoided.
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd
A strike-out is a draconian remedy, only granted in exceptional circumstances and plain and obvious cases.
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3)
In deceit, it's sufficient that the claimant was influenced by the misrepresentation, not that they believed it to be true.
Zurich Insurance Co plc v Hayward
In unlawful means conspiracy, an express agreement isn't necessary; a tacit combination with a common intention suffices.
Kuwait Oil Tanker Co SAK v Al Bader (No 3)
For very late amendments, a heavy burden rests on the applicant to show why justice requires the amendment.
Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs
The limitation period for deceit and conspiracy doesn't start until the fraud is discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.
Limitation Act 1980, section 32(1)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; application to amend granted.
The court found EUI's pleaded case of dishonesty sufficient to justify refusing a strike-out. The evidence, while disputed, presented a realistic prospect of success at trial. The application to amend was not unduly late and did not introduce new causes of action.