News & Resources

Successful appeal against a decision to strike out ‘concerns’ pleaded in a Defence that did not advance a positive case of fraud.

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.

The Claimant alleged that he was involved in a genuine road traffic accident caused by the First Defendant’s negligence.  The First Defendant failed to cooperate with his insurer and could not be traced.  The insurer did not have sufficiently cogent evidence to make an allegation of fraud as against the Claimant, but it did have a large artillery of information that it said would undermine the claim to the extent that the Claimant could not prove his case. The insurer’s Defence did not make an allegation fraud, but did rely on several particular concerns in support of its contention that the Claimant could not prove his case.

The Claimant applied to strike out parts of the insurer’s Defence on the basis that it amounted to a pleading of fraud by insinuation (placing reliance on the obiter comments of Davis LJ in Hussain v. Amin [2012] EWCA Civ 1456).  The District Judge at first instance agreed and struck out parts of the Defence which he thought amounted to a pleading of fraud.

The insurer appealed on the ground that the District Judge had fallen into error by characterising the Defence as one that pleaded fraud.  It was argued that the Defence was properly pleaded in accordance with the well-established line of case law (including Kearsley v. Klarfeld [2005] EWCA Civ 1510 and Francis v. Wells [2007] EWCA Civ 1350) which establish that in this type of case it is not necessary for the defence to make a substantive allegation of fraud or fabrication, but it is sufficient to set out the detailed facts from which the court would be invited to draw the inference that the claimant has not suffered the injuries or damage alleged.

His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC allowed the appeal, relying on the Judgment of Cranston J in Ahmed v. Lalik (1) Cooperative (2) [2015] EWHC 651 and emphasising that it is necessary for parties to put their cards on the table by way of pleading, the artillery and ammunition they seek to use.

Related Barristers

James Henry

James Henry
Year of Call: 2010

Close X

TEMPLE GARDEN CHAMBERS is a market leading set with recognised excellence in a myriad of practice areas with awarded leaders in twelve specialist areas. TGC has the privilege of being well placed in the Temple and The Hague with superb facilities.

Currently consisting of 17 silks and 60 juniors with outstanding leadership and a long established clerking team acknowledged for their exceptional client services and business development, we are keen to expand upon our key areas.

To accommodate the growth in our core practice areas we are inviting applications from established practitioners and/or teams to further enhance our excellent reputation in the following fields:

• Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence
• Inquests & Inquiries
• Health & Safety
• Costs & Litigation Funding

TGC is widely recognised for its friendly ethos and its commitment to Equality & Diversity and Wellbeing. We are especially keen to encourage applications from underrepresented groups at the bar – women, people with disabilities, those from ethnic minority groups and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Applications will be treated with the strictest confidence and should be addressed to the Head of Chambers, Keith Morton QC

In advance of any formal application both Keith Morton QC and Dean Norton (Senior Clerk) would be delighted to have a confidential discussion. To arrange a meeting please contact Dean on 020 7842 8641 or