- Appeals and fundamental dishonesty (Kamara v Builder Depot Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- Fundamental dishonesty
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case Details
Personal Injury analysis: Following a finding of fundamental dishonesty, the claimant sought permission to appeal. As noted by Mr Justice Lavender, there then followed a myriad of (entirely avoidable) procedural mishaps which resulted in ten orders of the High Court between the filing of the Appellant’s Notice and the consideration of the merits of an appeal which had no reasonable prospects of success. Lavender J gave a firm reminder to practitioners of the requirements of an appeal bundle, before considering the lack of substantive merit in the appeal. Written by Henry King, barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial