18th March 2022
Welcome to the latest edition of the TGC Fraud Update.
These are busy times. As foreshadowed in previous editions of this update, the introduction of the whiplash reforms has seen a substantial rise in the ‘layering’ of previously straightforward claims with claims for treatments in various guises, and claims associated with recognised psychiatric injuries. Those increases come at the same time as a significant rise in credit hire claims arising from incidents involving motorcycle couriers and delivery drivers, no doubt fuelled in part by the enormous demand for ‘dine-in’ services, as well as the shifting business models of the credit hire and accident management industries. Many of the resulting claims from 2020 and 2021 still remain a long way from trial, and judging by the number of aged claims that are listed for trial, but are being vacated at the last minute due to a lack of judicial availability, the number of claims filling lists in the County Court is likely to persist for years to come.
Meanwhile, the High Court continues to deal with increasing volumes of serious and high-value injury claims in which allegations of fundamental dishonesty are being alleged.
In this issue:
• James Yapp looks at the Supreme Court decision in Ho v Adelekun  UKSC 43, with notes of caution in relation to offers of settlement and enforcement of costs in QOCS cases.
• Tim Sharpe analyses two recent High Court decisions on the application of s.57, and considers the tricky issue of claimants hiding behind mistakes or decisions of their representatives.
• Robert Riddell considers the decision of the Court of Appeal in Griffiths v TUI  EWCA Civ 1442 concerning the judicial evaluation of ‘uncontroverted’ expert evidence.
• Anisa Kassamali examines the distinction between dishonest exaggeration and fundamental dishonesty in the context of Elgamal v Westminster City Council  EWHC 5210 (QB).
• I take a look at the principles guiding the amendment of pleadings to advance a positive case of dishonesty, and whether there is a need to do so in light of Howlett and the recent decisions in Covey v Harris  EWHC 2211 (QB), Mustard v Flower  EWHC 846 (QB) and Cojanu v Essex Partnership University NHS Trust  EWHC 197 (QB).
As always, these articles are accompanied by summaries and interesting practice points taken from a host of recent decisions in the types of cases that we all deal with on a daily basis.
Please do contact a member of the TGC fraud team if you have any queries about any of the items dealt with in this issue, or indeed about any other issues relating to insurance fraud and related matters.
I hope that the contents of this newsletter are both interesting and useful; as ever I would welcome any feedback from our readers.