header-logo header-logo

Fundamental dishonesty ‘unfounded’

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

NLJ Career Profile: Maria Karaiskos KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maria Karaiskos KC, Church Court Chambers

Maria Karaiskos KC, recently appointed as the first female head of Church Court Chambers, discusses breaking down barriers, the lure of the courtroom, and the power of storytelling

Bevan Brittan—Bethan Gladwyn

Bevan Brittan—Bethan Gladwyn

Housing management team expands with specialist partner hire

Ionic Legal—Tania D’Souza Culora

Ionic Legal—Tania D’Souza Culora

Brand protection and IP disputes expertise strengthened with partner hire

NEWS
In a special tribute in this week's NLJ, David Burrows reflects on the retirement of Patrick Allen, co-founder of Hodge Jones & Allen, whose career epitomised the heyday of legal aid
Writing in NLJ this week, Kelvin Rutledge KC of Cornerstone Barristers and Genevieve Screeche-Powell of Field Court Chambers examine the Court of Appeal’s rejection of a discrimination challenge to Tower Hamlets’ housing database
Michael Zander KC, Emeritus Professor at LSE, tracks the turbulent passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill through the House of Lords in this week's issue of NLJ. Two marathon debates drew contributions from nearly 200 peers, split between support, opposition and conditional approval
Alistair Mills of Landmark Chambers reflects on the Human Rights Act 1998 a quarter-century after it came into force, in this week's issue of NLJ
In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ, Stephen Gold surveys a raft of procedural changes and quirky disputes shaping civil practice. His message is clear: civil practitioners must brace for continual tweaks, unexpected contentions and rising costs in everyday litigation
back-to-top-scroll