In a low velocity impact personal injury claim there seems to be some conflict between the Casey v Cartright procedure and Husain v Amin and another...
Q In a low velocity impact personal injury claim there seems to be some conflict between the Casey v Cartright procedure and Husain v Amin and another [2012] EWCA Civ 1456 which requires the defendant to plead a fraud as a fraud. If the defendant is to allege fraud, at what stage should a non-fraud defence be amended?
A In the typical low velocity claim, there is an admission of an impact but not of such force to have caused the injuries complained of. Casey seeks to provide a framework for early identification of this type of claim rather than set out a process of general application. However, the substance of the defendant’s case may be that the claim is fraudulent in that the claimant has invented the injury or symptoms or has deliberately exaggerated them. Whether the defendant intends to run such a defence or to contend that the entire accident is tainted with fraud in
