header-logo header-logo

Fundamental dishonesty ‘unfounded’

12 August 2022
Issue: 7991 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
A health board’s defence of fundamental dishonesty―a fast-developing defence used in clinical negligence cases―has been dismissed as ‘entirely unfounded’, in a claim concerning vaginal mesh surgery

Mrs Justice Howells, sitting at Wrexham County Court, last week held in favour of the claimant, Karen Preater, in Preater v Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. She dismissed the defendant’s allegations that the claimant lied in every aspect of her case, as part of a fundamental dishonesty defence pursuant to s 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

In January 2014, Mrs Karen Preater underwent vaginal mesh surgery to which she had not been properly consented and which was performed negligently. She now lives with chronic, constant pain as a result and walks with a stick.

The hospital trust concerned denied liability while several clinicians expressed scepticism over her levels of pain and suffering. In late 2020, Betsi Cadwaladr conducted video surveillance of Mrs Preater and trawled through her social media before launching a defence of fundamental dishonesty. It alleged the claimant was seeking to lie about her ability to work and need for care and assistance which, if found to be correct by the court, would have caused her to lose all her claimed compensation and likely led to an application by the defendant to have her committed to prison.

However, Howells J found Mrs Preater did not seek to deceive any party at any time and should be fully compensated with £970,000. She found the defendant’s allegations that the claimant lied were entirely unfounded.

Grant Incles, partner at Russell-Cooke, which represented Mrs Preater, said: ‘This is an emphatic victory for Mrs Preater, offering her complete vindication and the justice she deserves after such a long and horrific experience.

‘The provision of s 57 is the most draconian of powers available to defendants in personal injury litigation. This was an example of a defendant wielding it unsparingly, with no acknowledgment of the possibility of alternative explanation and complete refusal to engage in reasonable negotiation.

‘It can only be hoped that Howell J’s careful judgment is a warning to future defendants to invoke this power judiciously.’
Issue: 7991 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll