The Issues

The Claimant at first instance brought a claim for damages in personal injury.  The matter went to trial where the claim was successful with the Claimant being awarded £3,624.18.

However, certain parts of the claim were not allowed, with the focus being on physiotherapy treatment, vehicle storage, transportation and credit hire fees.

At trial, the Recorder found that there was no doubt that the collision had occurred and no doubt that responsibility for the collision lay entirely with the first Defendant’s employee who had negligently driven into the back of the claimant’s vehicle.

Although dishonesty was not specifically pleaded, at trial counsel for the Defendant repeatedly put to the Claimant that he was dishonest in his evidence and that some of the documents produced were fraudulent.

The Claimant’s claim included a claim for physiotherapy and in his written statement the Claimant stated that the GP instructed by his solicitors had suggested he may benefit from such treatment to help aid his recovery and that he had in fact obtained this treatment which had proved helpful.  Eight sessions of physiotherapy at £100 per session were claimed in the particulars of claim but under cross-examination the Claimant admitted to only attending one session.

The Claimant was also challenged in cross-examination in relation to the claim for credit hire and the Defendant made submissions that this, alongside the claim for physiotherapy amounted to fundamental dishonesty.

The Recorder found that the claim had been prepared by solicitors which meant that the Claimant was clearly unfamiliar with parts of his witness statement and in cross-examination he had ‘happily volunteered’ information which could be considered detrimental to his case.

He therefore considered that the various discrepancies in the Claimant’s evidence could be explained by his lack of understanding of what was going on and since he did not know or understand the basis of the claim that the solicitors had advanced on his behalf, the Recorder could not make a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

The Defendants subsequently appealed the decision on the grounds that the Recorder had been wrong not to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty.