The High Court Provides Guidance on Fundamental Dishonesty after London Olympics Volunteer Brings Dishonest Claim

Insurance Article

06 February, 2018

London Organising Committee of the Olympic & Paralympic Games (In Liquidation) v Haydn Sinfield (2018)[2018] EWHC 51 (QB)

The Court have set out the correct approach to applications to have a personal injury claim dismissed for fundamental dishonesty pursuant to s.57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 ("CJCA"). Mr Sinfield was injured whilst volunteering at the London Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012. Mr Sinfield brought a claim for personal injury, and the Defendant admitted liability. Mr Sinfield claimed that as a result of the accident he had to employ a gardener to look after his two-acre garden, a task which he and his wife had previously carried out. The total claimed, including future gardening expenses, was £14,000.

The Claimant disclosed invoices from his gardener. The Defendant approached the gardener who said he had been working as a gardener for Mr Sinfield since 2005, and that his work had not changed as a result of Mr Sinfield's accident. He also confirmed that the invoices did not come from him.

As a result of this information, the Defendant sought the dismissal of the claim under s.57 CJCA on the basis that Mr Sinfield had been fundamentally dishonest. However, the Judge dismissed the application and found that Mr Sinfield had not been dishonest but had been "muddled, confused and careless about this part of his claim".

The judge found that he had been dishonest in creating false invoices and in stating in his witness statement that the accident had caused him to employ a gardener but found that this dishonesty was not fundamental to the entire claim just to the gardening claim. He continued that it did not contaminate the claim and it would be unjust for the entire claim to be dismissed when the dishonesty related to a peripheral part of the claim and the rest was genuine.

The decision was appealed and overturned under s.57(2). The High Court held that the earlier decision was "plainly wrong". Mr Sinfield presented a large claim for special damages, which was evidenced by the dishonest creation of false invoices and by a dishonest witness statement. The dishonesty was premeditated and maintained over many months. Further, the judge made no findings capable of supporting a conclusion that if the whole claim was dismissed it would result in substantial injustice to the Claimant.

The Court has provided guidance on the proper approach to s. 57. A Claimant should be found to be fundamentally dishonest within the meaning of s.57(1)(b) if:

  • the Defendant proved on the balance of probabilities that he had acted dishonestly (in relation to the primary and/or a related claim), and
  • that he had substantially affected the presentation of his case, in respect of either liability or quantum, in a way which potentially adversely affected the Defendant in a significant way, judged in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of the litigation.
  • If the judge was satisfied that a claim was dishonest then he had to dismiss the claim in its entirety unless he was satisfied that the Claimant would suffer substantial injustice.

Forbes comment

It seems quite surprising that the Recorder at First Instance did not consider the actions of the Claimant to be fundamentally dishonest. It is hoped that the guidance offered in this binding judgment will give further bite to s. 57 and will deter Claimant's from exaggerating elements of their claim. It is useful that the Court has also clarified that the mere fact that a Claimant would lose his damages for the entire claim and not just the dishonest part of the claim does not count as "substantial injustice". Instead the Court must look for substantial injustice arising as a consequence of the loss of damages to subvert a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

If you are looking for any more information with regards to our services view our Insurance section. You can also contact Sarah Wilkinson in our Insurance department via email or phone on 01254 662831. Alternatively send any question through to Forbes Solicitors via our online Contact Form.

Back

23 Aug 2018

Insurance

NEWS AND ARTICLES

Important Decision for Defendants on Fixed Costs

The Court of Appeal determined that a claimant was not entitled to standard or indemnity costs where a…

Read the article

With 'extensive knowledge' that 'inspires confidence', the department at Forbes is led by managing partner Martin Crabtree.

2014 edition Legal 500

More clients

Forbes is "absolutely fantastic - nothing is too much trouble".

2011 edition Legal 500

More clients

The Team "Deliver a consistently high quality service across the board"

2010 Edition Chambers UK

More clients

It is easy to support organisations that I have complete confidence in. Excellent, fast, straight to the point work, no procrastination, which in turn means no racking up of fees.

Liability Operations Manager

More clients

During the ten years I have experienced with Forbes I have always without exception received a first class service.

Insurance Officer
Metropolitan Borough Council

More clients

You won the Tender based on talent and quality.

- report following successful tender for a Metropolitan Borough Council

More clients

I owe you and your colleagues a lot. I appreciate all the assistance you and Forbes have offered me both professionally and personally.

More clients

Make an enquiry