The Supreme Court and all things deceitful, fraudulent, unjust and malicious—2016 in review [Archived]
The Supreme Court and all things deceitful, fraudulent, unjust and malicious—2016 in review [Archived]

The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • The Supreme Court and all things deceitful, fraudulent, unjust and malicious—2016 in review [Archived]
  • A mixed bag of Supreme Court decisions in 2016—what do you need to know?
  • Setting aside settlement agreement for deceit (Hayward v Zurich)
  • Fraudulent devices and fraudulent claims in the insurance context (Versloot v HDI)
  • Unjust enrichment and the taint of illegality (Patel v Mirza)
  • Malicious prosecution of civil claims (Willers v Joyce)
  • Vicarious liability (Mohamud v WM Morrison)
  • All things deceitful, fraudulent, unjust and malicious in 2016—closing remarks

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published.

A mixed bag of Supreme Court decisions in 2016—what do you need to know?

The year 2016 has seen some interesting decisions in a number of areas and in circumstances where a divided view amongst our most senior judges is all too apparent.

In this review of 2016, we consider:

  1. setting aside settlement for deceit (Hayward v Zurich)—see below

  2. fraudulent presentation in insurance claims (Versloot v HDI)—see below

  3. unjust enrichment claims tainted by illegality (Patel v Mirza)—see below

  4. malicious prosecution of civil claims (Willers v Joyce)—see below

  5. the 'close connection' test in cases of vicarious liability (Mohamud v WM Morrison)—see below

Setting aside settlement agreement for deceit (Hayward v Zurich)

In Hayward v Zurich the Supreme Court was asked to set aside a settlement agreement in circumstances where insurers had entered into the settlement in the knowledge that the claimant had exaggerated the extent of his injuries but were not aware, until sometime after the settlement had been concluded, that the claimant had in fact made a full recovery prior to entering into the settlement agreement. The crux of the issue was therefore how much of a suspicion as to

Popular documents