Acted for the Defendant in a claim pleaded at £1.8M involving neurological, spinal and psychiatric injuries, including an instability in the structures of C1/2, trigeminal nerve pain and PTSD. C had been a nurse. Her pleaded case was that she would not be able to work again and would require care for life. The Defendant advocated for a multidisciplinary treatment programme that would allow C to return to sedentary work in some capacity and reduce or eliminate her care needs. The case was settled at a JSM between the parties’ respective positions for £475,000.
Acted for the Claimant who suffered serious orthopaedic and urological injuries. The primary dispute was whether C was able to continue working as a production operative in a car factory (albeit with ‘restricted worker’ status), or whether she was entitled to claim compensation on the basis of her re-training to become a nail technician and work from home to manage her symptoms. There were also significant disputes over the modes of treatment and likelihood of future surgeries. The case was settled at a JSM between the parties’ respective positions for £680,000.
Acted for the Claimant, a 21-year-old man who was injured in a motorbike accident, leaving him without fine motor skill in his non-dominant hand. C did not have formal qualifications, but had been working as part of an Ambulance crew and planned to do ‘on the job’ training with the aim of qualifying as a paramedic. He contended that he could not pursue his chosen career because of his injury. D’s case was that C would never have qualified as a paramedic. The case was settled at a JSM between the parties’ respective positions for £315,000.
Acted for the Defendant in this traumatic brain injury claim involving contested evidence from neurologists, neuropsychologists and neuropsychiatrists. C’s case was advanced at just under £1M, the bulk of which related to loss of earnings as the head of design at a fashion house. The case settled for £300,000.
Acted for the Claimant who injured his ankle in a motorbike accident aged 16. The only significant dispute between the parties was whether C would have had a successful career professional rugby league player. C advanced a loss of chance claim based on 5 likely career scenarios. D adduced expert evidence from a sports agent and asserted that C’s prospects of a successful career were slim at best. The case was settled at a JSM between the parties’ respective positions for £135,000.
Acted for claimant, a 73-year-old man who suffered spinal injuries after a workplace fall from height. Contributory negligence and causation in were dispute. C made a remarkable recovery in the circumstances, but maintained that he would have continued to work as a dry liner until at least age 75. The claim was settled for £100,000.
Acted for the Claimant in a negotiated settlement of £175,000 involving a significant causation dispute arising from orthopaedic injuries sustained a bicycle accident. D relied upon the Claimant’s pre-accident history of psychiatric issues to contend that C was unlikely to have achieved his desired role as a headteacher of a Special Educational Needs school. C maintained his claim for loss of earnings and the claim was compromised between the best-case figures.
Botea v McCallum Guildford CC, DJ Murphy (remote video)
One of the first findings of fundamental dishonesty by remote video link following the Covid-19 lockdown. (Instructed by Ryan Curley of Horwich Farrelly.)
Dishonest litigant sentenced to 5 months’ immediate custody for false personal injury claim. Paul McGrath and James Henry, instructed by Benjamin Leech of Keoghs LLP, secured a committal order of immediate imprisonment for 5 months for contempt of court against Mr Robert Hall. Paul McGrath appeared in the committal hearing, and James Henry acted at sentencing stage.
Genuine injury claim dismissed owing the claimant’s fundamental dishonesty in relation to the claim.
Solomon v AXA Central London County Court, Rec. Riza QC
Dismissal of entire claim (including PI and special damages), despite admitted vehicle damage, following application of s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
Finding of fundamental dishonesty against an opportunistic claimant who knew how to try and work the compensation system, but whose dishonesty was uncovered after being ‘tied up in knots’. (Instructed by Katie Islip of Horwich Farrelly.)
Findings of fundamental dishonesty against two claimants and an enforceable order for indemnity costs in a case involving late intimation and FNOL call recordings. (Instructed by Leah Whitehead of Horwich Farrelly.)
Dishonest injury claim dismissed following concessions of dishonest evidence during cross-examination. (Instructed by Jessica Bradley of Horwich Farrelly.)
Findings of fundamental dishonesty against claimants who had staged a collision with the First Defendant. Inconsistent routes, mapping evidence and adverse inferences were all crucial to the success. (Instructed by Karen Mann of Horwich Farrelly.)
Claim dismissed on the basis of fundamentally dishonest evidence about gym attendance and injuries sustained. (Instructed by Katie Islip of Horwich Farrelly.)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty following discontinuance by the Claimant, after it was discovered that the claimant had submitted a false repair invoice. (Instructed by Karen Mann of Horwich Farrelly.)
Fundamental dishonesty in relation to the Claimant’s injury claim led to the dismissal of otherwise recoverable credit hire charges of c.£10k pursuant to s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. (Instructed by Gemma Day of Horwich Farrelly.)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty in a causation dispute where the claimant alleged ongoing pain for over three years following an accident in a car park. (Instructed by Aysha Ahmad of Horwich Farrelly.)
Dismissal of claim following fundamentally dishonest evidence on liability. (Instructed by Bradley Sutcliffe of Horwich Farrelly.)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty following discontinuance by the claimant prior to the amendment of the defence. (Instructed by Karen Mann of Horwich Farrelly.)
Dismissal of entire claim pursuant to s.57 on the basis of fundamentally dishonest exaggeration in relation to the claim for injuries. (Instructed by Naila Ali of Horwich Farrelly)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty in a ‘late notification’ case. (Instructed by Samantha Donovan of Keoghs.)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty and award of indemnity costs in a late intimation case. (Instructed by Matthew Hill of Horwich Farrelly.)
Dishonest injury claim dismissed following collision with London bus. Despite attending her GP and undergoing a course of physiotherapy, the Claimant had been dishonest in the presentation of her claim and sought to exaggerate her losses. (Instructed by Sandra MacMichael of Weightmans.)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty in a call recording case, despite C and his expert both endorsing onset of injury after the call (+2 days). (Instructed by Tim Ibbotson of Keoghs.)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty and dismissal of the entire claims in an LSI case where the court found that the claimants had sustained injury. LOCOG v Sinfield considered.
An application of Howlett v Davies leading to the dismissal of a claim and an award of indemnity costs in a late intimation case where the Court found ‘the strongest evidence of dishonesty’. (Instructed by Husnain Yousaff of Horwich Farrelly.)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty in a slam-on case where fraud had not been pleaded. Howlett v Davies applied.
Finding of fundamental dishonesty for Metroline following late discontinuance by the Claimant, an alleged bus passenger. (Instructed by Sandra MacMichael of Weightmans)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty following filing of a notice of discontinuance in a case arising from a ‘slam-on’ induced collision forming part of a fraud ring in Leeds. (Instructed by Matthew Warne of Horwich Farrelly.)
Findings of fundamental dishonesty on the papers following discontinuance the day before trial. (Instructed by Adrian Cottam and Amy Hickey of Clyde & Co.)
Claimant’s solicitors ordered to show cause pursuant to the wasted costs rules on the basis of improperly translated documents. (Instructed by Tim Ibbotson of Keoghs.)
Claim arising from a staged accident dismissed with a positive finding of fraud on the basis of inconsistent damage. (Instructed by Morgan Davies of Hill Dickinson.)
Finding of fundamental dishonesty and an order for indemnity costs made against London bus driver following dishonest injury claim. (Instructed by Sandra MacMichael of Weightmans.)
Successful appeal against a decision to strike out ‘concerns’ pleaded in a Defence that did not advance a positive case of fraud. (Instructed by Karen Mann of Greenwoods.)
Seven fraudulent ‘slam-on’ claims defeated following a 5-day trial involving telematics ‘black-box’ data. (Instructed by Karen Mann of Greenwoods.)
Finding of substantial exaggeration on the part of the claimant consultant gynecologist reduced her award from nearly £15,000 (as pleaded) to £900. (Instructed by Cheryl Harrison of Weightmans.)
1st June 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of the TGC Fraud Update.
At the time of our last Update we were in the midst of the pandemic, a vaccine was a distant dream, and only a handful of remote hearings had led to findings of fundamental dishonesty and the exposure of insurance fraud.
As the cases reported in this edition of the Update demonstrate, the assessment of credibility through the medium of a remote video hearing has evolved into a practice with which representatives and judges are now familiar.
There does not appear to have been a downturn in the incidence of false claims, and there does not appear to have been a downturn in the exposure of those claims at trial. Those observations seem to be validated by the IFB’s estimations that, notwithstanding 3 national lockdowns, there have been 170,000 motor insurance claims in the last 15 months suspected to have been linked to crash-for-cash networks.
The way that we deal with cases may have changed, but those statistics and the current backlog of cases in the County Court certainly suggest that insurance fraud lawyers will be kept busy for the foreseeable future. It is important, however, to recognise that the time for the implementation of the whiplash reforms has finally arrived. It is an opportune moment to focus on the pressing questions for the industry: how will they work, and how will they affect us all? Will they achieve their stated aims of reducing whiplash claims while maintaining access to justice for genuinely injured parties? Will the mechanisms hinder or help the detection and prevention of fraud? We may not have all the answers right now, but Robert Riddell’s article ensures we are in the best position to be ready when the first cases cross our desks.
View External Link
TGC Fraud Newsletter
11th August 2020
Please see link below to Issue XI of the TGC Fraud newsletter.
View External Link
3rd December 2019
Paul McGrath and James Henry, instructed by Benjamin Leech of Keoghs LLP, secured a committal order of immediate imprisonment for 5 months for contempt of court against Mr Robert Hall. Paul McGrath appeared in the committal hearing, and James Henry acted at sentencing stage.
26th February 2019
Please see link below for the February issue of the TGC Fraud Newsletter.
View External Link
2nd July 2018
TGC Fraud Update July 2018, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.
View External Link
21st February 2018
TGC Fraud Update February 2018, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.
View External Link
25th January 2017
James Henry (instructed by Sandra MacMichael of Weightmans) represented Metroline at a hearing to determine issues of fundamental dishonesty following late discontinuance by the Claimant.
TGC Fraud Update v3 – June 2016
22nd June 2016
Stemming the tide of the fraud.
Please see link below for the third edition of TGC Fraud Update, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.
View External Link
17th June 2016
James Henry (instructed by Matthew Warne of Horwich Farrelly and Hastings Direct) represented the Defendant at the successful application for a finding of fundamental dishonesty following filing of a notice of discontinuance in a case arising from a ‘slam-on’ induced collision forming part of a fraud ring in Leeds.
3rd February 2016
Facing up to the challenge of fraud rings
29th January 2016
James Henry acts for UPS securing findings of fundamental dishonesty following discontinuance.
15th October 2015
James Henry (instructed by Tim Ibbotson of Keoghs) represented the Defendants in this claim for personal injury that was struck out at trial. The Claimant had signed statements of truth on the Particulars of Claim, two witness statements and replies to Part 18 Questions, none of which had been translated into his own language. It appeared to the court that the Claimant did not speak sufficiently good English to have given instructions without an interpreter or understood the statements of truth.
6th August 2015
James Henry (instructed by Rachel Greenway of Keoghs) acted for Tesco Underwriting Ltd in its successful defence of a claim for vehicle damage, credit hire, storage and recovery charges in excess of £24,000.
30th April 2015
James Henry (instructed by Sandra MacMichael of Weightmans) represented the successful defendant bus company at the trial of a personal injury claim arising from a collision between two London busses on Piccadilly.
24th April 2015
James Henry (instructed by Karen Mann of Greenwoods) represented Sabre Insurance in its successful appeal against a decision to strike out elements of a Defence that put to the Claimant to proof against the evidential backdrop of the insurer’s concerns surrounding a road traffic accident claim.
10th February 2015
James Henry (instructed by Morgan Davies of Hill Dickinson) acted for Hastings Direct in its successful defence of a claim for damages arising from a staged accident.
16th January 2015
James Henry, instructed by Karen Mann of Greenwoods and Hastings Direct, represented the successful defendant at a 5-day fraud trial in Manchester.
3rd June 2013
James Henry (instructed by Lindsey Bartling of Greenwoods) represented the Second Defendant at the hearing of its application to strike out the Claimants’ claims as an abuse of process on the basis that they had wasted Court resources.
Court refuses relief from sanctions under new rules where claimant breached unless order
18th April 2013
James Henry (instructed by Karen Mann of Greenwoods and representing Sabre Insurance) successfully opposed a Claimant’s application for relief from sanctions in an early decision applying the new CPR r.3.9. The Court refused relief from sanctions where the Claimant’s case was struck out for failure to comply with an unless order. The decision represents an early indication of the robust approach Courts will adopt in their application of the new CPR r.3.9 and the need to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
Thank you for choosing to instruct me in your case. I will need to collect and hold your personal information in order to represent you. I might also need to collect and hold personal information of third parties.
I will take all possible steps to protect personal information. I am determined to do nothing that would infringe your rights or undermine trust.
This Privacy Notice describes the information I collect, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it. If you have any questions about how I collect and hold your personal information as your barrister, please do not hesitate to contact me by email, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
I am registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a Data Controller for the personal data that I hold and process as a barrister. My registered address is Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London EC4Y 9DA and my registration number is Z3103637.
The information that I hold about you is provided to or gathered by your legal team in the course of your case. Your solicitor will tell you why we need the information and how we will use it.
THE LAWFUL BASES FOR PROCESSING PERSONAL INFORMATION UNDER THE GDPR
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires all organisations that process personal data to have a “Lawful Basis” for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:
- Consent of the data subject
- Performance of a contract with the data subject or to take steps to enter into a contract
- Compliance with a legal obligation
- To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another person
- Performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller.
- The legitimate interests of ourselves, or a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests, rights or freedoms of the data subject.
(Examples of legitimate interests include:
- Where the data subject is a client or in the service of the controller;
- Transmission within a group of undertakings for internal administrative purposes;
- Processing necessary to ensure network and information security, including preventing unauthorised access;
- Processing for direct marketing purposes, or to prevent fraud; and
- Reporting possible criminal acts or threats to public security)
Some personal data is especially sensitive, so falls into special categories of personal data which require other lawful bases for processing. Medical records are in one special category of data. The special categories are data revealing:
- Racial or ethnic origin;
- Political opinions;
- Religious or philosophical beliefs;
- Trade Union membership;
- Data concerning health or sex life and sexual orientation;
- Genetic data or biometric data.
MY LAWFUL BASES FOR PROCESSING YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION
My main Lawful Basis for processing your information is that the processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which you (the “data subject”) are party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract.
(The “contract” here is the contract for the provision of legal services to you, the data subject.)
I have another Lawful Basis for processing your information (and that of any third party – see below). That is for the legitimate interests of my business as a barrister. Among those legitimate interests, for example, are:
– The administration of my business (eg. my clerks receiving information from your solicitor in relation to the case and making sure that all the information I need, eg. about hearings, is passed on to me);
– To keep records in relation to the services I provide (just in case, for example, there is a problem with those services and I need to provide information to you, to a professional body or to my professional indemnity insurer);
– To provide training. Trainees (pupil barristers and “mini-pupils” on short placements in chambers) are made aware of the strict duties of confidentiality applicable to legal work. I will always do my utmost to ensure the confidentiality of your personal information and will share with the trainee only the minimum amount of information necessary to provide such training (and will, if I can, avoid sharing any personal information at all with the trainee). But please do tell me (by email or in writing by post) if you would prefer that your case not be used by me for training purposes and I will not use it in that way.
My lawful basis for processing any third party’s information provided to me in relation to your case is that processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which I as controller am subject, namely the obligation to provide legal services under the contract with you.
(A “third party” is another person – whether the other party in the dispute or someone else whose information is relevant, such as a witness to the event in question or appropriate expert providing evidence in the case).
My lawful basis for processing any special categories of personal data (yours or a third party’s sensitive personal data, eg. medical records) is that the processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
So I use personal information carefully:
- To provide you with legal advice and representation;
- To manage efficiently the work I do for you;
- To investigate and address any concerns you might have; and
- To train future barristers.
AUTOMATED DECISION MAKING
I do not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.
I collect and process both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the GDPR. This includes, for example:
- Phone number;
- Payment or bank details;
- Date of birth;
- Location details;
- Device IP address;
- Financial information;
- Medical Records;
- Employment Records.
I may share your personal data with:
- Instructing solicitors
- Opposing Counsel, for the purposes of resolving the case
- Chambers management and staff who provide administrative services
- Pupil or mini-pupil, under my training
- My regulator or legal advisors in the event of a dispute or other legal matter
- Law enforcement officials, government authorities, or other third parties, if necessary to meet our legal obligations
- An expert instructed to give evidence in the case
- A paralegal assistant providing administrative and note taking support to me
- Any other party where I ask you and you consent to the sharing.
TRANSFERS TO THIRD COUNTRIES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.
I retain your personal data while you remain a client unless you ask me to delete it. My Retention and Disposal Policy (copy available on request) details how long I hold data for and how I dispose of it when it no longer needs to be held. I will delete or anonymise your information at your request unless:
- There is an unresolved issue, such as a claim or dispute;
- I am legally required not to do so; or
- There are overriding legitimate business interests, including but not limited to my obligations to keep records in case of future complaint or claim against me, fraud prevention and protecting customers’ safety and security.
The General Data Protection Regulation gives you specific rights around your personal data. For example, you have to be informed about the information I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about you, you can ask us to correct any inaccuracies with the personal data I hold, you can ask us to stop sending you direct mail, or emails, or in some circumstances ask us to stop processing your details. Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with your personal data you can seek compensation for any distress you are caused or loss you have incurred. You can find out more information from the ICO’s website http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/personal_information and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.
ACCESSING AND CORRECTING YOUR INFORMATION
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing, please:
- By email, at email@example.com or
- By post, at Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London EC4Y 9DA
MARKETING OPT OUTS
You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.
- See how often you access our website; and to
- Remember your user preferences and settings.
I WILL OCCASIONALLY UPDATE MY PRIVACY NOTICE
When I make significant changes, I will do my best to notify you of these by email. I will also publish the updated Notice on my website profile.