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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll