- Fundamental dishonesty—what to plead (Mustard v Flower)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- The proposed amendments
- What did the court decide?
- Allowed amendment
- Disallowed amendment
- Not necessary to plead fundamental dishonesty
- Examples of adequate warning/sufficient notice
- Beware not giving sufficient notice
- Expert evidence
- Case details
Personal Injury analysis: Master Davison’s decision in Mustard v Flower & others  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.
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