£4.9k in costs awarded in fundamental dishonesty case
Fundamental dishonesty ruling results in a £10k saving for our insurer client.Read more
This case involves a suspected fraud claim led by associate Rehana Ahmed, where Flint Bishop was disputing liability, causation and quantum.
Despite the claimant admitting under cross-examination that he had been “dishonest”, and that their vehicle was driveable after the accident, no repairs were actually carried out and they returned the hire vehicle earlier than recorded on the hire documents, the Deputy District Judge did not attach any weight to any of this and found in the claimant’s favour on all issues. Further, the defendant was refused permission to appeal.
Our insurer client did not want to incur the costs of the appeal without a second opinion and so asked for Counsel’s advice from their preferred chambers. The difficulty here was that the appeal would have to be on the finding of fact, which is extremely difficult and rare.
Counsel, of some 13 years call, gave success prospects at 15%. Rehana disagreed with Counsel’s advice and placed prospects of success estimate at approximately 60%. Rehana delivered a presentation to three senior people at our insurer client in order to convince them to run the appeal.
Rehana’s assessment of the case was exceptional as she went on to win the permission to appeal hearing, and then the appeal itself, with the court ordering the matter to be re-tried on the facts.
The claimant then wanted to discontinue and agreed to pay £18,000 in costs and return the PAV of £2000. The insurer client made the commercial decision to allow the discontinuance with costs, rather than incur further costs of the re-trial. However, this was an exceptional result nonetheless.
For more information about this suspected fraud case, please call us on 01332 226 109 or complete the form below.
Scroll to next section
Scroll back to the top