header-logo header-logo

Fundamental dishonesty: a double-edged sword?

14 April 2021 / HHJ Karen Walden-Smith
Issue: 7928 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
45619
HHJ Karen Walden-Smith examines the importance of restraint when raising allegations of fundamental dishonesty
  • Qualified one-way costs shifting and s 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 mean that defendants in personal injury claims will often allege that the claim is fundamentally dishonest.
  • While this allegation is crucial for the deterrence of dishonest claimants, there is a danger that it is being used by some defendants to dissuade the bringing of personal injury claims, thereby discouraging the genuine claimant.

The large number of smaller personal injury claims that are met with allegations that the claim is fundamentally dishonest is a consequence of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) and the provisions of section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015). Such allegations should not be raised to deter the bringing of genuine claims.

QOCS & section 57

The origins of the QOCS regime lie in Sir Rupert Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs, and the observation that ‘in personal injuries litigation

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll