PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Where a claim for assault and false imprisonment was successfully made, although the assault claim was vulnerable to dismissal for fundamental dishonesty under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015), the false imprisonment claim was not. This was because the court held that a claim for false imprisonment was not a claim for damages for personal injury and therefore CJCA 2015, s 57 did not apply. Further, because the fundamental dishonesty that was found related to the claims of assault and did not go to the root of the claim for false imprisonment, the claim for false imprisonment should not have been dismissed, even if there had been jurisdiction under CJCA 2015, s 57. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Where a claimant suffering from psychiatric injury consciously exaggerates their symptoms in order to convince experts of their suffering, is that claimant being dishonest even if their dishonesty is not ‘calculated’? In this trial of an allegation of fundamental dishonesty in a military PI claim, the High Court answered ‘yes’. Telling an untruth in support of a greater truth (to convey suffering) is dishonest under the Ivey test for dishonesty, though it may not have been dishonest under the now overruled Ghosh test. Written by David Illingworth, barrister at Exchange Chambers.

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 an exception to qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) protection under CPR 44.16. 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 2015 • Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) • Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS)—case tracker No finding of fundamental dishonesty Case name and details Background Outcome Kul v DWF Law LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 1130Court of AppealAugust 2026 DWF, acting for insurers defending personal injury claims, compiled information from 372 road traffic accident (RTA) claims into a spreadsheet identifying patterns said to support allegations that claims involving Ersan Solicitors had been fraudulently

Fundamental right describes, in practice, a core legal entitlement that attracts heightened judicial protection and guides statutory interpretation and administrative decision‑making.In England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the term is descriptive rather than defined in statute. Courts speak of fundamental common‑law constitutional rights (such as access to the courts, liberty and freedom of expression) and of Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. Such rights drive the principle of legality (clear words are needed to override them) and proportionality analysis. They shape judicial review and remedies: public authorities must act compatibly with Convention rights; incompatible primary legislation may prompt a declaration of incompatibility; devolved legislation is outside competence if ECHR‑incompatible.In Ireland, fundamental rights is the label for constitutional rights in Articles 40–44 of the Constitution, elaborated by case law (including recognition of unenumerated personal rights). These bind the State, guide proportionality and can invalidate inconsistent legislation, with direct remedies.Across both systems the European Convention on Human Rights is influential. Ireland also applies the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights when EU law is engaged; the Charter no longer forms part of UK domestic law post‑Brexit.Practitioners invoke fundamental rights in pleadings, proportionality assessments and compliance.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant lied about how serious her condition was and persuaded others to lie to support her account. The High Court found that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in relation to her claim. The court was not persuaded that she would suffer substantial injustice if her claim was dismissed. The claimant did not suffer substantial injustice merely because she would not have the funds to seek the therapies she said she needed. The claimant had used interim payments to purchase her current home and if her claim was dismissed she would have to sell it. However, the court did not believe that the claimant would suffer substantial injustice if dismissing the claim was likely to result in the court ordering her to repay the interim payment. Written by Nadia Whittaker, barrister at Crown Office Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: A claimant who had succeeded at a liability-only trial failed to obtain permission to appeal against the subsequent dismissal of her claim for fundamental dishonesty under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015). Her claim, valued at approximately £2m, was based on alleged psychiatric injury said to have arisen from harassment and to have persisted for more than a decade. At the quantum trial, the court found that the claimant was not a protected party and that she had dishonestly exaggerated her symptoms over many years for financial gain. The claim was dismissed in its entirety. The High Court rejected all proposed grounds of appeal as not reasonably arguable, describing many as hopeless, and upheld wide-ranging costs consequences, including the disapplication of QOCS protection and the imposition of a civil restraint order. Chris Maynard, barrister at Tanfield Chambers, acted for the defendant in the appeal.

What is microfinance? The Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) defines 'microfinance' as 'the supply of loans, savings and other basic financial services to the poor'. Different stakeholders see microfinance from their own perspective and so, tend to define it from their angle. Governments see it as social protection. Donors focus on its potential to secure poverty reduction. Commercial insurers see its potential as a way of reaching large under-served markets. Analysts use it to highlight the size of the market at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’. Academics see it as an essential financial service for sustainable economic growth. All of the definitions are similar to those for conventional insurance, except for the clearly prescribed target market: low-income people. Broadly speaking, microfinance is a set of practices developed with the objective of increasing the provision of financial services (including loans, savings products, insurance and remittance services) to low income-clients. Typically, these clients come from the poor ‘unbankable or uncreditworthy by commercial banks’ population of the world, to whom traditional sources

Prior to A-day, these were mainly top-up pension schemes created to provide retirement benefits for executives in excess of those permitted from an approved scheme. They were granted limited tax relief by HMRC. Post A-day they were largely replaced by employer-financed retirement benefit schemes.

A pre-6 April 2006 scheme that falls outside the scope of HMRC tax approval for retirement benefit schemes. Funded unapproved retirement benefits scheme in existence on 6 April 2006 became employer financed retirement benefit schemes.

Funder means a party (acting for itself

Law360, London: A litigation funder told a London court on 17 September 2025 that a businessman should not be allowed to participate in proceedings seeking to enforce an asset recovery judgment, because he allegedly improperly colluded with a convicted fraudster to overturn the outcome of past litigation.

Law360: A year on from the landmark decision by the UK Supreme Court that reversed the financing of class actions, and failing any immediate legislative solution, lawyers say litigation funding agreements will continue to face scrutiny with new challenges to the returns funders can expect to earn.