header-logo header-logo

23 July 2014
Issue: 7616 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Injury lawyers up in arms

Warning over motor insurance strike-out proposals

Plans to give courts new powers to strike out motor insurance cases with “phantom passengers” and “fundamentally dishonest claims” have been condemned by personal injury lawyers.

According to a fact sheet accompanying the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, cl 45 provides that where the claimant is entitled to damages but the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has been “fundamentally dishonest” in relation to the claim as a whole then it must dismiss the entire claim, except where the claimant would suffer “substantial injustice” as a result.The court would also be required to record the damages award that would have been made but for the dishonesty, and to award costs against the claimant not exceeding that award.

Legal consultant Nicholas Bevan says: “Here we go again, a government determined to shoot from the hip and legislate over issues it does not understand, this time at the behest of the commercial interests of insurers and without a shred of any independently corroborated evidence to substantiate the insurers’ claims that fraud is increasing.”

A spokesman for the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers says: “To introduce the power for blanket dismissal in this way will lead to three things: an increase in spurious allegations of fraud and exaggeration by insurers; an increase in satellite litigation, and an increase in the number of genuine claimants who either underplay their symptoms or who fail to bring valid cases at all, for fear of being falsely accused. 

“If it can be proved to a criminal standard that an entire claim is fraudulent, there is no doubt that it should be thrown out...The law is rarely black and white, which is why the courts already have the power to use discretion to deal with alleged exaggeration.”

 

Issue: 7616 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll