Lees Solicitors - 5 reasons not to exaggerate a claim - Solicitor Asher Beresford explains why

Clinical Negligence News

5 reasons not to exaggerate a claim - Solicitor Asher Beresford explains why


5 reasons not to exaggerate a claim - Solicitor Asher Beresford explains why

In the recent case of Walton v. Kirk the Defendant successfully brought contempt of court proceedings against the Claimant believed by the Defendant to be exaggerating her injuries.

There are numerous reasons why Claimants should not exaggerate their claims.

1. Caught on Camera?

Defendants, their representatives and insurers often use methods to identify Claimants whom they believe to be inflating their claims, including engaging private investigators to provide mobile surveillance of Claimants to produce video footage, photographic evidence and written logs.

In Walton v. Kirk, Ms Kirk was claiming over £800,000 in damages following a road traffic accident. She claimed that she was only able to walk 10 steps on a good day, was bedridden on bad days and was unable to work. However, video footage was obtained of Ms Kirk shopping, walking and driving. In view of this, Ms Kirk accepted the Defendant's insurer's payment into court of £25,000 in damages.

Where the Defendants have successfully relied on such evidence they may ask the court to order the Claimant to pay some or all of their costs.

2. Medical Experts WILL Catch You Out

Most clinical negligence and accident cases will have at least one expert in a particular discipline who will be instructed to provide evidence on the allegations of negligence and/or the condition and prognosis of the Claimant.

These experts often have many years of experience in their chosen discipline and so will be difficult to fool.

Whilst the expert may be instructed by either party their overriding duty is to the court and therefore they will not hesitate in informing the court if they do not believe that a Claimant is telling the truth.

3. Cross-examination, anyone?

If the case proceeds to trial then a Claimant, their friends, family and/or colleagues could be cross-examined on any evidence relating to the Claimant's past and present condition. Defence barristers are skilled in drawing out inconsistencies in evidence of different witnesses.

4. Can the Claimant afford the costs?

Even if a Claimant is successful in obtaining damages in their case the Defendant may refuse to pay the Claimant's costs on the basis that that Claimant was exaggerating their claim.

The Claimant may also have to pay his own legal costs. For example, if a Claimant has signed a Conditional Fee Agreement which obliges him to give honest and accurate instructions then his own solicitors may terminate the agreement and recover the costs incurred from the Claimant personally.

In Walton v. Kirk where the Claimant had exaggerated her damages, the Defendant offered to settle the case for damages on the basis that the Claimant would pay all her own costs and also the Defendant's costs from 21 days after the payment into court until it was accepted (which were settled for £21,000). The Claimant accepted this proposal and this meant she walked away with very little from the litigation.

Therefore, the Claimant could be faced with a huge bill not only for his own costs but also those of the Defendant.

5. Contempt of Court Proceedings

Part 32.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the rules of court) allows for contempt of court proceedings to be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

To succeed in contempt proceedings the following three elements of must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:-

1. the falsity of the statement
2. the false statement had or would have interfered with the course of justice
3. when the false statement was made the maker had no honest belief in the truth of the statement

The consequences include imprisonment, fines and sanctions.

In Walton v. Kirk, after the case had settled, Ms Walton's insurers applied for permission to bring contempt of court proceedings against Ms Kirk.

In March 2009 Ms Kirk was found in contempt of court on two grounds: in relation to statements she had made in applying for a disabled parking badge and also in an incapacity for work questionnaire which was a claim for a state benefit. Ms Kirk had signed a declaration that the statements she was making were true and during the case she again verified that they were true.

Mrs Kirk escaped a custodial sentence but she was ordered to pay a fine of £2,500.00. She was also ordered to pay 50% of Ms Walton's costs of the contempt proceedings.

Asher Beresford

 


This article provides a summary of a recent case/change in law/news item. It is intended for general information purposes only and is not to be relied upon. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated under any circumstances as a substitute for legal advice. Lees Solicitors LLP does not accept any responsibility for any loss that may arise from reliance upon the information contained within this article. The copyright in this article is owned by Lees Solicitors LLP and permission must be sought before reproduction or publishing.


arrow Back to Clinical Negligence News