header-logo header-logo

14 April 2021 / HHJ Karen Walden-Smith
Issue: 7928 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Fundamental dishonesty: a double-edged sword?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll