Anastasia Karseras illustrates the recent crackdown on fraudulent activity
Given the prevalence of fraudulent or fraudulently exaggerated claims for personal injury, it comes as no surprise that the court’s response to these claims has also sharpened and gained greater urgency.
Strike out?
The Supreme Court set out its stance with its decision in Summers v Fairclough Homes Limited [2012] UKSC 26, [2012] All ER (D) 179.
In Summers, the claimant had been injured in an accident at work while employed by the defendant. After a trial, the judge found for the claimant on liability, but left damages to be assessed. In a signed witness statement the claimant asserted that he was not able to stand for more than 10 to 15 minutes. The claimant served a schedule of loss claiming damages in excess of £800,000. Undercover surveillance revealed the claimant to have grossly exaggerated the effect of his injuries. At the trial of quantum the lower court declined, despite the surveillance evidence, to strike out the claim as an abuse of process, instead
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
