header-logo header-logo

28 May 2009 / Jonathan Scriven
Issue: 7371 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Contempt of court—ramifications for the exaggerating claimant

Jonathan Scriven reviews Kirk v Walton

In Kirk v Walton [2009] EWHC 703 QB, All ER (D) 70 (Apr) Mrs Kirk issued proceedings in 2004 after sustaining injuries in a road traffic accident on 14 September 2001. Kirk claimed that as a result of her accident she had developed fibromyalgia which resulted in a significant and long-term disability—Kirk complained of difficulty walking, climbing stairs and of occasionally being bedridden. Kirk's pleaded case was in excess of £750,000 and in support of her claim she served a number of documents verified by statements of truth which dealt with the nature and extent of her injuries and disabilities.

Liability was conceded by the defendant's insurers although they had clear doubts as to the genuineness of the claimant's injuries and believed that she was exaggerating both her disability and her consequential claim for damages. The defendant's insurer's paid £25,000 into court in February 2005 and obtained surveillance evidence which showed Kirk driving, walking, standing and carrying shopping in an entirely ordinary manner with

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll