Pascale Hicks secures a fundamental dishonesty finding against a Claimant, where, at trial, the cross examination revealed the Claimant tailored his evidence to suit his audience.
Pascale was instructed, by a National Insurer, to defend their insured in a multiple car accident claim, where breach of duty had been admitted but causation was disputed. Pascale persuaded the Judge, sitting at the County Court in Manchester, to dismiss the Claimant’s claim and find him to be fundamentally dishonest.
The Judge held that this Claimant had the hallmarks of a dishonest Claimant. In her judgment the Claimant’s evidence was a total nonsense and found him to be dishonest witness, who was inventing evidence when his mistakes were pointed out to him during cross examination. The Claimant had provided different accounts to his road traffic act insurer as to the circumstances and mechanics of the accident. He had sought to minimise the first collision to the insurer a year after the accident but in cross examination told the Judge that the first collision was 'a severe smash'. His explanation that he had only stopped boxing competitively rather than fully when faced with his report to the orthopaedic surgeon and his inconsistent Facebook entries was laughable. The Judge stated that it was impossible to escape from the conclusion that the Claimant tailored his evidence according to his audience. The Claimant had been wholly untruthful and his claim would be dismissed. QOCS would be dis-applied pursuant to CPR 44:16.
For further information please contact Pascale Hicks at email@example.com