legal watch - fraud - july 2014
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
Legal Watch:Counter FraudJuly 2014
In This Issue:
Taking the Fight to the Fraudsters
• Winning is not enough
• Exemplary damages
Recent Successes
• Perseverance and the importance of
comparing and contrasting evidence
• Investigations identify a fabricated insured
• Pressure on claimants leads to strike out of
claims
• Evidence from a settled claimant leads to
defeat of suspected bogus passenger claims
• Suspected staged accident/social media
• Suspected staged accident with CCTV
• Similar fact evidence
• Solicitors acting without instructions
• Fraud ring
• Tainting argument leads to strike out
• Claimant not allowed to withdraw Part 36
offer
• Pre-action disclosure application defended
Welcome to...
Taking the Fight to the FraudstersWinning is not enoughAs insurers are only too aware, successfully defending a claim
can often be a pyrrhic victory, as the fraudulent claimant walks
away with no consequence, the insurer’s costs unpaid by his
costs insurers, and with the fraudulent claimant having no
assets, rendering a recovery action unattractive.
A growing body of case law supports the proposition that
there is another way: contempt of court. A successful case
of contempt of court is likely to lead to the fraudster being
imprisoned.
Contempt of court is an ancient power of the court, to hold to
account those who make a mockery of the tribunal. CPR 32.14
states that a party may be in contempt of court if they make a
false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth
without an honest belief in its truth.
So what is required in order to persuade the court to hold a
fraudster in contempt?
The law has been consolidated into CPR 81. There are three
stages to the proceedings.
First, the substantive proceedings should be concluded
before a contempt application is put on its feet. The outcome
could be dismissal at trial (Quinn v Trifonovs), discontinuance,
or even settlement. In Fari v Homes for Haringey, the claim
was so grossly exaggerated that the claim was struck out,
even though the claimant was otherwise entitled to £1500
damages. Our collegaues at Plexus Law acted for Homes for
Haringey throughout the litigation.
Once the substantive proceedings are at an end, an application
is made to the High Court for permission to bring a new case
in contempt against the claimant. Permission is required to
ensure that spurious claims are not made, having regard to the
gravity of the punishment sought.
The application must be supported by an affidavit from the
lawyer, which should identify precisely what false statements
the claimant is said to have made. The affidavit must exhibit
all the documents upon which the application is based
and also set out any evidence which might go against the
application. The affidavit has to be served on the claimant
in person.
At the application hearing, the court must decide if there is
a sufficiently strong case to allow it to proceed. The court
will need to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case that
the contempt will be proven, beyond reasonable doubt. The
judge deciding the permission hearing does not need to be
sure of the contempt himself, but needs to be satisfied that
there is a strong case.
In Fari, permission to proceed was granted because
there was a clear line between what the claimant said she
had suffered, and what surveillance evidence revealed.
Conversely, in RSA v Kosky permission was refused because
there was not a clear-cut case when the surveillance was
compared with the claimant’s statements.
The judge will need to decide if there is public interest in
allowing the case to proceed. Not every contempt should
attract the sanction of imprisonment; it is only in particularly
serious cases that permission should be granted. In
Trifonovs, permission was granted due to the clear public
interest in punishing the claimant to deter others from
pursuing fraudulent injury claims.
The judge will also need to decide if it is proportionate to
punish the claimant for his contempt. The majority of cases
where permission has been granted have been cases
where the claimant has exaggerated his injury claim; and
the difference between the true value of his damages and
his claim as presented has shown clear proportionality in
bringing the contempt proceedings. In Liverpool Victoria
v Bashir, the claimant’s claim had been modest – in the
bracket of £5000 – 15000; but the judge held that the fraud
committed was of a most serious kind and found that a
prison sentence was justified.
Once permission is granted, contempt proceedings must
be commenced and dealt with without delay. In South
Wales Fire & Rescue v Smith the proceedings had taken so
long to come to a head that the claimant was excused an
immediate prison sentence. Instead, a suspended sentence
was imposed which would not be executed, provided he
paid the insurer’s costs.
The claimant is permitted to defend or admit the
proceedings; but retains the right against self-incrimination.
If he does nothing, the insurer must prove the contempt
beyond reasonable doubt. The claimant is entitled to call
evidence to rebut the allegations, which he is required to
serve before the trial.
In the event the claim in contempt is successful, not only
should the claimant expect imprisonment; he may also
be ordered to pay the insurers’ costs of the contempt
proceedings. Given that a costs judgment is actionable for
six years and fraudsters are generally imprisoned for less
than a year, this should not be ignored by the applicant
insurer.
Insurers should be under no illusion that contempt of
court is neither an inexpensive nor certain area; and an
application should only be made after careful consideration.
They should also bear in mind that they may refer the case
to IFED if the evidence is sufficiently strong.
Jonathan HeadT: 01489 882913
Exemplary damagesA series of cases suggests that insurers should be pleading
exemplary damages as part of a counterclaim where fraud
is suspected. But, what are the circumstances when such
damages are unlikely to be awarded and are there any steps
to be taken to improve the prospects of success?
Fifty years ago in Rookes v Barnard [1964] A.C. 1129 (the
leading case on exemplary damages), Lord Devlin stated
that “the object of exemplary damages is to punish and
deter”. He identified that exemplary damages could be
awarded where the fraudulent claimant’s conduct has been
calculated by him to make a profit for himself, which may
well exceed the compensation payable to the insurance
company.
Unfortunately their use thereafter was restricted to only
certain types of action and it was not until 13 years ago
that the matter was reconsidered by the Supreme Court
(then the House of Lords) in Kuddus v Chief Constable of
Leicestershire [2001] UKHL 29.
The view was taken that the important factor was the
behaviour of the defendant and awards by the lower courts
(only a small proportion of which are reported) now suggest
a greater appetite for the imposition of exemplary damages.
Further to the reported decisions in AXA Insurance v
Thwaites (2008), AXA Insurance v Jensen (2008), Direct
Line v Suleman (2010), AXA Insurance v Shaikh (2010) and
Liverpool Victoria v Ghadha & Iqbal (2010), the matter of
Tasneem & Others v Morley came before Her Honour Judge
May QC in September 2013, sitting at Central London
County Court. The court was asked to award exemplary
damages against claimants involved in nine connected
actions which had already been struck out. Additional
exemplary damages were awarded against all parties, save
for the lead claimant who already had to bear the brunt of
costs in the proceedings.
These decisions provide useful guidance in bringing such
claims before the courts.
1. Is the claimant being criminally prosecuted?
Exemplary damages are more likely to be awarded in the
absence of criminal penalties to avoid a double penalty.
Can evidence be provided to the court about impending
prosecutions?
• In Tasneem & Others v Morley none of the claimants
were to face prosecution.
• In Axa Insurance UK Plc v Thwaites the claimant
received a suspended sentence for deception and
exemplary damages were not awarded.
• However, in AXA Insurance UK Plc v Jensen, exemplary
damages were awarded where the claimant received a
caution for fraudulently claiming that her caravan had
been sold as the court decided that the caution was
not significant in light of the nature of the offence, the
amount of money and the need to deter against future
similar activities.
2. The claimant must know about the claim and should
have the opportunity to respond
• In Tasneem & Others v Morley there was no prejudice
to the claimants who had had ample opportunity to
respond and to attend the hearing and had chosen to
do neither.
3. The claimant’s means are a relevant factor
Asset checks should be undertaken where possible
and cases chosen carefully. Is the court likely to award
exemplary damages against a claimant with limited means
and will the insurer recover such damages? Do the benefits
of deterrence and punishment outweigh the cost?
• In Tasneem & Others v Morley the claimants had not
provided any information concerning their means
despite the opportunity to do so. The judge found she
did not need to take into account the absence of such
evidence as a restricting factor in the awards made.
• In Liverpool Victoria v Ghadha and Iqbal the court
awarded exemplary damages of £500 and £1000
because the claimants were of limited means.
4. How much will the award be?
There is no specific formula, but some broad guidance.
The courts will consider the profit that the claimant has
sought to obtain or a percentage of the basic claim that the
claimant made. In a fraud case insurers should be able to
recover their costs on an indemnity basis. Where costs are
in excess of the claim value, are exemplary damages on top
appropriate?
• In Tasneem & Others v Morley the strength of the
message of deterrence was held to be in the overall
amount that claimants are obliged to pay. Where
the costs against the lead claimant were in excess
of £44000 this was held to be a sufficient deterrent
and further exemplary damages were not awarded.
Exemplary damages were however still awarded against
the other claimants.
The general tendency of the courts is to award around 50%
of those damages sought.
• In AXA Insurance v Jensen the claimant’s conduct was
thought to be “relatively severe” and an additional 50%
of the basic claim was awarded as exemplary damages.
• In AXA Insurance v Shaikh (2010) the claimant’s failure
to mention his involvement in a further accident was
found to be an “expensive nuisance” and 50% of the
sum claimed by the insurer was awarded.
• In Direct Line v Suleman (2010) the insurer was awarded
damages of £300,000 and an additional £92,000 in
exemplary damages, just over 30%.
The principle is that one single award is made against
multiple claimants.
• In Tasneem & Others v Morley the lower value of claims
of passengers as against the higher value claims of
drivers was a restricting factor, although not an absolute
restriction. Exemplary damages were awarded of £2000
per driver and £1000 per passenger.
5. Request recovery for in-house investigation costs
• In Liverpool Victoria v Ghadha & Iqal the insurance
company were awarded £750 for in-house costs.
• In Tasneem & Others v Morley the judge found that
the cumulative impact of these low-value fraudulent
claims is huge and that insurance companies should
be properly compensated for their reasonably incurred
investigation costs of £1000 per claimant.
Exemplary damages are an important weapon in a
defendant’s armoury; they have a strong deterrent effect,
can prove invaluable as a negotiating device and often
result in claims being discontinued. Claims for exemplary
damages can be brought as a counterclaim when the
defence is filed or at a later date should new evidence arise.
However, cases should be chosen with care before
proceeding to a hearing. Courts must be persuaded that the
potential outcome of the claimant’s conduct well exceeds
the punishment and deterrent effect that can be achieved
by an award of compensatory costs and damages.
Lindsey Bartling
T: 0207 462 3456
Recent SuccessesPerseverance and the importance of comparing and contrasting evidenceAK, SM & IM v S Insurance Company
Gloucester and Cheltenham County Court
Three claimants alleged they were passengers in the
insured’s vehicle which failed to stop at a junction and
collided into a passing vehicle. The passing vehicle did not
stop and remained untraced. The insured supported his
passengers’ claims and indemnity was reserved.
Although initially there were a small number of concerns
and limited claims history, the evidence gathered revealed
multiple and substantial discrepancies. The insured’s vehicle
damage was found to have been largely consistent, but
engineering evidence suggested that the passing vehicle
may not have been driveable post collision. The claimants
failed properly to reveal their claims histories and pre-
existing conditions. Their claims that sporting activities were
affected were found to be untrue and there was no evidence
of their alleged absences from work and education.
Part 35 questions, in conjunction with witness evidence
and GP records, revealed the claimants’ evidence to
be misleading, including their excuses as to why the
pre-examination questionnaires had not been properly
completed and their own medical expert agreed the
claimants were unreliable.
The claimants’ solicitors removed themselves from the
court record and we negotiated recovery of costs directly
from the claimants. Estimated overall savings for the client
were in the region of £60000.
For further information regarding this matter, please contact
Lindsey Bartling
T: 020 7462 3456
Investigations identify a fabricated insuredRafiq Fasar v S Insurance Company; Sadaqat Hussain v Robert Wilkinson & S Insurance Company
Walsall County Court
4, 5 & 6 March 2014
These two claims were tried together as both concerned
an accident alleged to have occurred on 23 January 2011.
Both claimants claimed that the insured’s van collided with
Hussain’s Range Rover, causing this to collide with Fasar’s
Vauxhall Vectra.
Our client adduced evidence showing that there was no
trace of the insured at his given address; that the family
living at the given address had lived there for seven years
and had no knowledge of the insured; that notwithstanding
his occupation allegedly being a hospital doctor, the insured
was not registered with the General Medical Council; and
that the bank account used to purchase the insured’s policy
had been used to purchase a further policy of insurance,
against which a number of suspicious claims had been
presented.
At trial, Recorder Mainds found that the claimants were
unreliable witnesses (he was assisted in this regard by the
fact that Hussain failed to attend for the third day of the trial
and withdrew his instructions to his solicitors and counsel).
The judge found that the insured was a “ghost”, fabricated
for the purpose of bringing these claims and that the
accident itself was a fabrication. He dismissed the claims in
their entirety. Our efforts led to a saving against reserve for
our client in the sum of £302956.
For further details regarding this matter, please contact
Howard Chater
T: 01908 298205
Pressure on claimants leads to strike out of claimsES, CF & JC v MH & S Insurance Company; MY v MH & S Insurance Company
Our insurer client was presented with six claims from alleged
occupants of two vehicles involved in an alleged accident
on 6 July 2011.
A defence was filed, highlighting a number of discrepancies
in the evidence presented by the parties, particularly with
regards to the evidence presented by the third party driver,
Michael Yates.
The fourth claimant failed to comply with court directions
and an unless order was obtained, with a strike out provision.
He failed to comply with this unless order and his claim was
struck out in January 2014.
Two litigated claims remained and these were listed for a
trial between 12 and 17 May 2014. We continued to maintain
pressure on the remaining claimants, putting them on notice
as to the discrepancies that we would be expecting them
to address in cross-examination. This pressure led to the
claimants withdrawing instructions from their solicitors
shortly prior to the trial and we secured orders for strike out
of the claims.
Our efforts led to a saving against reserve for our client in
the sum of £136728.
For further information regarding this matter, please contact
Howard Chater
T: 01908 298205
Evidence from a settled claimant leads to defeat of suspected bogus passenger claimsNI & YZ v EC & S Insurance Company
Staines County Court
29 May 2014
A genuine accident occurred on 7 October 2010 on
Goldsworth Road, Woking, Surrey.
The insured failed to co-operate and some two and a half
years later claims were brought by two alleged passengers
in the insured vehicle. This raised suspicion as no mention
had been made of these passengers previously.
Witness evidence was obtained from the driver of the third
party vehicle, who had already had his own claim settled.
He was adamant that there was only one person in the third
party vehicle and it was decided his evidence was strong
enough to proceed to trial.
Before trial we made an application as the claimants had
failed to provide medical records when requested. We
also applied to disallow the claimants from relying on the
documents within their List of Documents, as the version of
the list filed was illegible.
At the application hearing immediately before the trial, the
judge agreed to debar the claimants from relying on any
medical evidence and refused permission for them to call
the first defendant as a witness. The judge found that:
• (a) The court could not ignore the failure to provide a list
of documents in time
• (b) The failure was more than trivial because it deprived
the second defendant of knowing whether the medical
records would be disclosed for three weeks and
therefore delayed the issue of its application, which had
to be heard on the morning of trial. The trial could then
not go ahead if further disclosure were ordered
• (c) There is an automatic sanction under CPR 31.21
debarring reliance on documents not disclosed, or, if not
automatic, the overriding objective and need to enforce
compliance with court orders demanded a strong
sanction
• (d) The appropriate sanction would be to debar the
claimants from relying on any medical evidence; and
• (e) No relief from sanction would be granted because
there was no written application for relief and, in any
event, there did not appear to be any good reason for
the default.
After the decision, the parties were given time to take further
instructions and the claimants sensibly decided to accept a
drop hands offer to withdraw with no order as to costs rather
than run the risk of a finding of fundamental dishonesty.
The result led to a fraud saving of almost £60000.
For further information regarding this matter, please contact
Stephen Lawrence
T: 020 7462 3424
Suspected staged accident/social mediaNB, EW & LR v FW & A Insurance Company
Eight claims were intimated following this alleged accident.
The file was sent to us with concerns the accident was
staged as there was a Facebook friend connection between
the two vehicles.
Further research showed the connection was established
just two weeks prior to the accident and further links were
identified to the third party driver’s Facebook page for his
business.
Previously completed Part 18 responses by the passengers
of the insured vehicle described the damage to the vehicle.
The damage described did not match the engineer’s report.
Further Part 18 responses denied knowing any of the parties
contrary to the social media evidence.
As a result fraud was pleaded. The claimants’ solicitors came
off record and the three litigated claims were discontinued/
struck out. The remaining five claims were withdrawn. The
saving was £64185.
For further information regarding this matter please contact
James Mansell
T: 01908 298264
Suspected staged accident with CCTVLukasz Soroka v Jamie Calland & A Insurance Company
Liverpool County Court
17 & 18 February 2014
The insured had incepted a policy online using a garage’s
address just 17 days before the accident. He changed the
address within minutes to his home address. The alleged
accident occurred on the garage forecourt when the insured
reversed into a stationary vehicle. Three claims were
intimated; one from an alleged passenger in the insured
vehicle and two from alleged passengers in the stationary
vehicle, one of whom was the director of the garage.
CCTV footage was obtained by the garage. It showed an
eight second clip of the accident but did not show persons
getting into or out of the vehicles. It was not available for
the insurer to view as it had been automatically deleted at
the end of the month. The driver and owner of the stationary
vehicle issued proceedings.
The claimant’s medical records evidenced a previous frozen
shoulder injury not disclosed to the medical expert. The
claims notification form, signed the day after the accident,
stated he had whiplash injuries, yet he told the medical
expert his injuries did not materialise for three days.
The claimant alleged that he was at the garage having
been out with the director buying tools. However, bank
statements obtained did not match with this allegation.
An article was located confirming the insured had twice
previously been convicted of fraud. At the trial of this case
at Liverpool County Court the claims were found to have
been fraudulent. This resulted in a £64400 saving with an
order that the claimant pays our costs on an indemnity basis
and returns the interim payment made to him for his vehicle
damage. Recovery of costs is ongoing.
For further information regarding this matter please contact
James Mansell
T: 01908 298264
Similar fact evidenceAKA v NS
Central London County Court
21 May 2014
This claim arose from a suspected slam on accident and
fraud was pleaded within the defence.
We applied for permission to rely upon a witness statement
from a driver involved in a similar previous accident with
the claimant, even though this earlier accident had been
found to have been genuine. The claimant objected to our
application to rely on this similar fact evidence.
At the hearing of the application on the morning of the trial,
the judge granted permission for the defendant to rely upon
the similar fact evidence. The judge took the view that even
though fraud is not proven in another accident, this does not
mean that the facts of that earlier accident are not relevant
when deciding whether the index accident is fraudulent.
We also took the point that the claimant’s witness
statements had been served out of time and no application
for relief from sanctions had been made by the claimant.
The judge ordered that the claimant’s solicitors provide a
witness statement, explaining why the statements had been
served late.
Following the application hearing, the claimant made an
offer to discontinue with no order as to costs, which was
accepted by our client on an economic basis.
This led to a saving against reserve in the region of £38000.
For further information regarding this matter please contact
Mark Rudd
T: 020 7079 4623
Solicitors acting without instructionsThe following is a case we were involved in where the
solicitors were caught out acting without instructions.
Those of you who read the last edition of Legal Watch:
Fraud may recall a similar case being reported. A trend is
emerging of old, repudiated cases coming back to life just
before limitation and in several cases new solicitors have
been appointed. If an old case reappears insurers need
to be satisfied that there is a claimant in the background
providing instructions. Demand proof of ID by way of a utility
bill and a signed mandate from the claimant that he has
instructed X and Co to act for him. Inform the claimant’s
solicitors that it is a reasonable request given the length of
time that has lapsed and the previous instruction of another
firm of solicitors. If they refuse, reserve your right to bring
this to the attention of the court on the issue of costs if it
subsequently transpires they have no client.
For further information regarding this matter please contact
Karen Mann
T: 020 7462 3469
NM v SIRomford County Court
We were instructed to defend claims brought by five
claimants. The insured was the son of the claimants, who
were elderly. The insured was also their carer and confirmed
to us that the claimants did not wish to pursue their claims
for personal injury.
We took a statement from the insured confirming that the
litigated claimant no longer wished to pursue her claim
and filed a defence confirming our position. We gave the
claimant 21 days to discontinue his claim following service
of the defence but he did not do so. Thereafter we applied
to strike out the claim because it was an abuse of the court’s
process.
The claims were struck out and the claimant’s solicitors
were ordered to pay our costs of the action (from 17 August
2013 when the defence was served).
For further information regarding this matter please contact
Andrea Crisp
T: 01908 298291
Fraud ringDB & RS v LD & A Insurance Company
We were instructed to defend a suspected staged/contrived
RTA that formed part of a fraud ring that centred around the
claimant.
We filed an amended defence which pleaded fraud and
obvious links between other similar accidents. We obtained
engineering evidence and evidence that the insured vehicle
was not damaged following the accident. We applied to re-
amend the defence.
The second claimant’s claim was struck out following his
solicitors coming off record as acting for him, whilst the first
claimant discontinued and agreed to pay £2000 towards our
costs.
All pre issue claims have been withdrawn.
For further information regarding this matter please contact
Andrea Crisp
T: 01908 298291
Tainting argument leads to strike outNicholas Elia & Ellie Elia v S Insurance Company
Central London County Court
18 June 2014
This claim arose from an accident which occurred on
1 August 2011. It was accepted that an accident had
occurred, but we argued that the damage to the claimant’s
vehicle had been exaggerated.
In support of our argument, we relied upon expert
engineering evidence, which we alleged showed that the
damage to the claimant’s vehicle was inconsistent with the
collision with the defendant’s vehicle.
The court accepted our argument that the damage to the
first claimant’s vehicle had been fraudulently exaggerated
and his claim for hire was dismissed.
The second claimant, who was an occupant of the first
claimant’s vehicle, also saw her claim for personal injuries
dismissed. The court found that even if the second claimant
had sustained injury, it could not award damages due to her
participation in serious exaggeration.
For further information regarding this matter please contact
Howard Chater
T: 01908 298205
Claimant not allowed to withdraw Part 36 offerPB v JN
Liverpool County Court
The claimant’s solicitors sought to withdraw a Part 36 offer
within the 21-day relevant period as they had neglected to
include a claim for physiotherapy charges. This treatment
was not pleaded in the schedule of loss and there was no
evidence that paid-for treatment had ever been undertaken.
We objected to this and accepted the Part 36 offer, but the
claimant’s solicitors chose to make an application to the
court for permission to withdraw the offer.
At the hearing the claimant’s solicitors argued that the offer
had clearly been a mistake and they should be allowed to
withdraw it.
We instructed Ezra MacDonald of Pump Court Chambers
and argued that:
• (1) “Mistake” has to mean “mistake in law”
• (2) The judgment of Pitchford J in Hilton International v
Smith was binding: a party which makes a mistake may
well be fixed with the consequences of that mistake (in
that case, where the mistake was to pay in £46,000,
rather than £6,000, the paying party had still been fixed
with that error of judgment), and
• (3) It would be disproportionate and counter to the
overriding objective to grant the application, the amount
in dispute being, at most, £500.
The judge accepted our submissions, dismissed the
application and awarded costs to us. Part 36 is a strict
regime and it would create uncertainty were parties able too
readily to withdraw their offers. This would be counter to the
purpose of Part 36.
For further information regarding this matter please contact
Lindsey Bartling
T: 020 7462 3456
Pre-action disclosure application de-fendedTC v AC & A Insurance Company
Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court
8 April 2014
This claim arose out of a road traffic accident in which our
client’s insured was alleged to have driven into the rear of a
third party vehicle. The insured’s mother was a passenger in
the insured’s vehicle and had intimated a claim.
The claimant’s solicitors sought substantial pre-action
disclosure from our client, which was refused, and we were
instructed when the claimant’s solicitors made a pre-action
disclosure application.
The claimant’s application was two-fold:
• (1) Documents relating to engineering evidence, and
• (2) Any other documents which would be disclosable
in accordance with standard disclosure if proceedings
were issued.
We were successful in our opposition and our insurer client
was awarded costs. The judge commented in particular
that:
1. The criteria in 31.16 was not fulfilled as the claimant
should have no difficulty in pleading her case without
the requested disclosure. This is a straightforward RTA
claim and it would be disproportionate to order pre-
action disclosure.
2. Our client had legitimate concerns, which were not
fanciful, and were raised in correspondence. It is a
realistic concern that, in an era where sham accidents
take place up and down the country, that unless the
claimant makes her case clear whatever is disclosed
by the second defendant may be used to tailor the
claimant’s account of the accident.
3. It was a bit rich of the claimant to accuse the second
defendant of failing to comply with the spirit of the
pre-action protocol by refusing to put its cards on the
table when the claimant has refused to answer Part
18 questions. In any event the documents referred to
specifically in the pre-action protocol would not apply
in this case because there is no issue over where the
damage is on the vehicles.
4. The claimant had been given an opportunity to withdraw
the application and to walk away with the engineering
evidence she requested. She had refused that
opportunity and maintained that she should be entitled
to wide-ranging disclosure of documents.
5. Having put the concerns to the claimant in
correspondence (without disclosing the full extent and
detail of the concerns to the claimant), it should have
been apparent that engineering evidence would not
resolve the dispute.
It is worth noting that our letter setting out our concerns
and why the engineering evidence would not resolve the
dispute made a crucial difference to the outcome of this
application. By clarifying the damage issue and making it
clear to the claimant that we had concerns with the claim
without giving the game away and tipping her off, we were
in a much stronger position to argue that the claimant had
acted unreasonably, which ultimately led to the application
being dismissed and an order for costs in our favour.
For further information regarding this matter please contact
Karen Mann
T: 020 7462 3469
The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations. This document speaks as of its date and does not reflect any changes in law or practice after that date. Plexus Law and Greenwoods Solicitors are trading names of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC315763. Registered office: 8 Bedford Park, Croydon, Surrey CR0 2AP. Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.
www.plexuslaw.co.ukwww.greenwoods-solicitors.co.uk
Contact UsFor more information please contact:
Karen MannPartner
T: 020 7462 3469
To unsubscribe from this newsletter please email:
PublicationsIf you would like to receive any of the below, please
email indicating which you would like to receive.
Weekly:
• Legal Watch: Personal Injury
Monthly:
• Legal Watch: Property Risks & Coverage
Quarterly:
• Legal Watch: Counter Fraud
• Legal Watch: Disease
• Legal Watch: Health & Safety
• Legal Watch: Marine
• Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity
Welcome to...Howard Chater and Emma Hayes
We welcome Howard and Emma to Greenwoods, both of
whom are based in our Milton Keynes office, having joined
from Keoghs.
Howard joins as an associate and has acted exclusively for
motor insurers for the past 35 years. Howard spent the last
eleven years within the Complex Fraud Team at Keoghs.
Outside of work, Howard’s interests include travel,
photography and music. He also follows the fortunes of
Spurs football club, but describes himself as being more of
a sympathiser than a supporter!
Emma joins as the head of our Intelligence Team. She has
worked in insurance since 2002 and became involved in
intelligence work in 2006, first as an analyst and later as a
team leader at Keoghs before moving to Greenwoods.
Emma describes herself as a passionate advocate of how
much assistance intelligence can provide to the insurance
industry and she considers herself to have one of the most
interesting jobs around.
Emma previously lived in Greece for 11 years and maintains
an ability to speak Greek well.
In her spare time, Emma likes to spend time with her family.
She has three children who have a constant stream of ideas
of how to fill her time.