header-logo header-logo

Insurance surgery: Tackling fundamental dishonesty

Stratos Gatzouris considers the implications of the forthcoming obligation on courts to strike out PI claims found to be fundamentally dishonest

On 13 April 2015, s 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) will come into force. It places an obligation on courts to strike out personal injury claims which are found to be fundamentally dishonest.

What is fundamental dishonesty?

The concept of fundamental dishonesty was introduced by CPR 44.16(1) as an exception to qualified one way costs shifting (QOCS) in personal injury claims. A claimant will not benefit from QOCS if, on application by the defendant, the claimant is found to have been fundamentally dishonest. In such circumstances, an order for costs may be enforced against the claimant.

The term has since been incorporated into section 57 of CJCA 2015 and will apply to all proceedings issued on or after 13 April 2015. 

What does the new law say?

Section 57 places a duty on courts to strike out a personal injury claim, if, on application

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

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The threat of section 21 ‘no fault’ eviction was banished this week, after the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 passed into law
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
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?
back-to-top-scroll