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

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