header-logo header-logo

28 April 2011 / David Sawtell
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

My big fat fraudulent claim

Are courts ignoring “get tough” policy considerations in favour of justice where fraud is suspected, asks David Sawtell

Fraud is big business. The House of Commons’ Transport Committee Report into the cost of motor insurance heard evidence that that the insurance industryloses £2.1bn per annum to fraud. Some 30,000 staged road traffic accidents took place in 2009. The criminal conspiracies behind the resulting claims are frequently sophisticated. It should come as no surprise that the courts have been very busy grappling with the resulting legal issues.

At first blush it might be surprising, therefore, that the courts have allowed genuine claims to proceed even where the claimants have “supported” dishonest claims—the so-called “phantom passengers”. In Summers v Fairclough Homes [2010] EWCA Civ 1300 the Court of Appeal held that the law was now very clear: the court should allow the genuine claims rather than striking them out as an “abuse of process”.  The case of Shah v Ul-Haq and others [2010] 1 All ER 73, where a husband and wife in a car

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll