header-logo header-logo

14 April 2021 / HHJ Karen Walden-Smith
Issue: 7928 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Fundamental dishonesty: a double-edged sword?

45619
HHJ Karen Walden-Smith examines the importance of restraint when raising allegations of fundamental dishonesty
  • Qualified one-way costs shifting and s 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 mean that defendants in personal injury claims will often allege that the claim is fundamentally dishonest.
  • While this allegation is crucial for the deterrence of dishonest claimants, there is a danger that it is being used by some defendants to dissuade the bringing of personal injury claims, thereby discouraging the genuine claimant.

The large number of smaller personal injury claims that are met with allegations that the claim is fundamentally dishonest is a consequence of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) and the provisions of section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015). Such allegations should not be raised to deter the bringing of genuine claims.

QOCS & section 57

The origins of the QOCS regime lie in Sir Rupert Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs, and the observation that ‘in personal injuries litigation it must be accepted that claimants require protection against adverse costs orders.

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll