Simon McCann appears in 2 notable fraud cases:
In AXA Insurance Plc v Masud  EWHC 497 (QB) heard on 12 February 2019, Simon McCann represented AXA in contempt of Court proceedings (instructed by Kellie Maguire of DAC Beachcroft). The Defendant, Masud, had lied about not being able to work or drive following a genuine accident at work. He claimed in excess of £250,000. The Court found that he had worked (in a chip shop) and had drive the family car regularly. Masud was sentenced to serve 16 months’ immediate imprisonment for his contempt. Following his arrest and incarceration, Masud applied to either (a) have the sentence varied as he was not at the February hearing (having chosen not to be there), and/or (b) purge his contempt under CPR 81.31
On 25 June 2019, the High Court refused both Masud’s applications. Whilst Masud had alleged that he was depressed and unable to face the contempt proceedings, this was not enough to excuse his absence and his contumelious defaults. That was not a good reason for not attending. Further, the attempt to in part blame his former solicitors (Asons) for helping him to bring his fraudulent claim did not suggest genuine contrition, such that Masud had not purged his contempt
The sentence remained at 16 months, which is one of the longest that has been given for civil contempt
Separately, Simon McCann (instructed by Clare Quinn of DAC Beachcroft and Allianz) struck out a claim using s57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and obtained an enforceable order for costs under CPR 44.16
The Claimant alleged that he was injured in a road traffic accident. Since the impact was quite significant, there was no suggestion that it had been staged or of LVI. The Claimant claimed a 2-month loss of self-employed earnings, and put a letter from his accountant in evidence as support. Disclosure of the Claimant’s GP notes revealed that the Claimant had been in Lebanon for 1 of the 2 months’ loss claimed for, whilst in cross-examination the Claimant conceded that he had written the accountant’s letter. The Court did not accept the explanations given and found that the earnings claim was fundamentally dishonest. Although the claim for earnings was only about 20% of the full value of the case, the Judge struck out the entire claim under s57.