Fundamental dishonesty—case tracker
Fundamental dishonesty—case tracker

The following PI & Clinical Negligence practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Fundamental dishonesty—case tracker
  • No finding of fundamental dishonesty
  • Finding of fundamental dishonesty

This case tracker considers case law to date on fundamental dishonesty particularly in the context of the court’s power to dismiss a claim under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) but also in the context of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS). These decisions give some guidance on how the courts are interpreting fundamental dishonesty. Where available we have linked to the cases and/or analysis. This case tracker should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: What is fundamental dishonesty?, Personal injury claims and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act, Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) and Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS)—case tracker.

No finding of fundamental dishonesty

Case name and detailsBackgroundOutcome
Crosby v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
[2020] Lexis Citation 183

Leeds County Court

January 2020
The defendant submitted that the claimant had grossly exaggerated their claim particularly in relation to past care and assistance but also in relation to the claim for extra shoes and the future orthotics claim.

The claimant claimed for 17 additional pairs of shoes but agreed at the trial that they had actually purchased three or four pairs in total.
The judge declined to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

The claim for care was excessive but the judge did not consider it had been deliberately and dishonestly exaggerated in order to inflate the claim.

The

Popular documents