header-logo header-logo

12 August 2022
Issue: 7991 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Fundamental dishonesty ‘unfounded’

A health board’s defence of fundamental dishonesty―a fast-developing defence used in clinical negligence cases―has been dismissed as ‘entirely unfounded’, in a claim concerning vaginal mesh surgery

Mrs Justice Howells, sitting at Wrexham County Court, last week held in favour of the claimant, Karen Preater, in Preater v Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. She dismissed the defendant’s allegations that the claimant lied in every aspect of her case, as part of a fundamental dishonesty defence pursuant to s 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

In January 2014, Mrs Karen Preater underwent vaginal mesh surgery to which she had not been properly consented and which was performed negligently. She now lives with chronic, constant pain as a result and walks with a stick.

The hospital trust concerned denied liability while several clinicians expressed scepticism over her levels of pain and suffering. In late 2020, Betsi Cadwaladr conducted video surveillance of Mrs Preater and trawled through her social media before launching a defence of fundamental dishonesty. It alleged the claimant was seeking to lie about her ability to work and need for care and assistance which, if found to be correct by the court, would have caused her to lose all her claimed compensation and likely led to an application by the defendant to have her committed to prison.

However, Howells J found Mrs Preater did not seek to deceive any party at any time and should be fully compensated with £970,000. She found the defendant’s allegations that the claimant lied were entirely unfounded.

Grant Incles, partner at Russell-Cooke, which represented Mrs Preater, said: ‘This is an emphatic victory for Mrs Preater, offering her complete vindication and the justice she deserves after such a long and horrific experience.

‘The provision of s 57 is the most draconian of powers available to defendants in personal injury litigation. This was an example of a defendant wielding it unsparingly, with no acknowledgment of the possibility of alternative explanation and complete refusal to engage in reasonable negotiation.

‘It can only be hoped that Howell J’s careful judgment is a warning to future defendants to invoke this power judiciously.’
Issue: 7991 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll