header-logo header-logo

20 July 2012 / Michael Brace
Issue: 7523 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

A shady business

Michael Brace analyses the power to strike out fraudulent claims at trial

In Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers [2012] UKSC 26, [2012] All ER (D) 179 (Jun), the respondent suffered serious hand and leg fractures in an accident at work in May 2003. In August 2007, the county court entered judgment for the respondent on liability with damages to be assessed. Undercover surveillance between October 2007 and September 2008 revealed him to have grossly exaggerated the effect of his injuries and his inability to work. The respondent’s initial schedule of loss claimed damages of £838,616.

Revised schedule of loss

After disclosure of the surveillance evidence, the schedule of loss was revised downwards to approximately £250,000. At the trial on damages the judge found there was no doubt that the respondent had suffered serious fractures requiring at least two operations. However, he also held that the respondent had deliberately lied about ongoing symptoms in and after March 2007. The judge restricted the loss of earnings claim to June 2007 and in addition made

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll