£8k in costs awarded in fundamental dishonesty ruling

The trial proceeded at the County Court at Kingston on Thames in May 2021 before District Judge Armstrong.

Mr Gorla was cross-examined by our barrister for over an hour and a half, in which time Mr Gorla gave a very poor account and the Judge ultimately found him to be wholly unreliable.

In finding Mr Gorla to be fundamentally dishonest, the Judge noted the following issues with his evidence:

1. He failed to mention that he was a director of BR Motors Services Ltd, which was the company responsible for the recovery and storage of his motorcycle following the accident.
2. BR Motors Services Ltd in the five years following the accident took no steps to collect the monies due from Mr Gorla. The Judge found that the agreement with BR Motors Services Ltd was a sham and BR Motors Services Ltd had no intention of enforcing the contract.
3. He was involved in eight previous accidents which he failed to mention to his medical expert and in his witness evidence.
4. He failed to mention a relevant 15-year history of joint pain caused by arthritis.

The Judge was also highly critical of Mr Gorla’s verbal evidence and counted 33 “I can’t remember” responses after he began keeping notes. Issues that Mr Gorla could not remember included whether he had a bank account at the time of the accident. His disclosure and verbal evidence were so poor with regards to his financial means, that he failed to prove that he was impecunious at the time of the accident.

Our solicitor’s comments on the case:

“Having dedicated a lot of time and effort to this case, I am pleased that this has resulted in such a significant outcome for our client. Whilst this is such a major success for the insurer, ultimately, this is also a win for any bona fide road user, and it is highly reassuring for those who may unexpectedly find themselves defending a dishonest claim following a road traffic incident. Of course, it is also satisfying to be responsible for causing disruption to the business models which surround these types of claims.”

Anthony Carrington, Partner and recently appointed Head of Fraud at Flint Bishop said:

“This result is a fantastic finding against the claimant and those companies involved in the claims process who aim to unjustly profit from trivial road accidents. The inconsistencies in this case were expertly evidenced by the Counter Fraud team at Flint Bishop and the Judge’s findings validate the concerns our client had.

“The claimant has pursued this claim for five years, which just goes to show the lengths that people will go to pursue dishonest claims.”