header-logo header-logo

Fundamental dishonesty: a double-edged sword?

14 April 2021 / HHJ Karen Walden-Smith
Issue: 7928 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
45619
HHJ Karen Walden-Smith examines the importance of restraint when raising allegations of fundamental dishonesty
  • Qualified one-way costs shifting and s 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 mean that defendants in personal injury claims will often allege that the claim is fundamentally dishonest.
  • While this allegation is crucial for the deterrence of dishonest claimants, there is a danger that it is being used by some defendants to dissuade the bringing of personal injury claims, thereby discouraging the genuine claimant.

The large number of smaller personal injury claims that are met with allegations that the claim is fundamentally dishonest is a consequence of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) and the provisions of section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015). Such allegations should not be raised to deter the bringing of genuine claims.

QOCS & section 57

The origins of the QOCS regime lie in Sir Rupert Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs, and the observation that ‘in personal injuries litigation

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll