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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll