Legal News

Fundamental dishonesty—what to plead (Mustard v Flower)

Fundamental dishonesty—what to plead (Mustard v Flower)
Published on: 13 April 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Fundamental dishonesty—what to plead (Mustard v Flower)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • Defendants
  • Claimants
  • What was the background?
  • The proposed amendments
  • What did the court decide?
  • Allowed amendment
  • Disallowed amendment
  • Not necessary to plead fundamental dishonesty
  • More...

Article summary

Personal Injury analysis: Master Davison’s decision in Mustard v Flower & others [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) affirms, per Howlett, that a defendant does not need to plead fundamental dishonesty to make an application under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) or to disapply qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) on that ground. Further, there is no need, and it is not appropriate, to plead fundamental dishonesty on a contingent or speculative basis. However, the claimant must have sufficient notice and opportunity to deal with the issues that could lead a judge to a finding of fundamental dishonesty. Accordingly, the issues to be explored at trial that may lead to such a finding can and should be set out within the statements of case. Written by Cressida Mawdesley Thomas, barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents