James Paterson

Notable Cases

• Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Taylor v Burton Securities Ltd

  In an Application pursuant to CPR44 PD12.4 for a finding of fundamental dishonesty after a late notice of discontinuance at a trial, James secured the finding and an enforceable costs order in excess of £10,000 against a Claimant who the Court found had lied by trying to pass his wife off as an ‘independent’ witness in documents supported by a statement of truth. 

• Tabassam & Liaqat v Advantage Insurance Company Limited

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a personal injury claim involving a road traffic accident, the Court found that not only was the accident itself not capable of causing any injury but, further, the Claimants 'were unreliable and untruthful witnesses'. Findings of fundamental dishonesty were made against both Claimants.

• Direct Line Group v Samra

  Civil & Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Claimant insurer, James secured an award of £9,000 exemplary damages the Court determining that the Defendant had fraudulently misrepresented that his vehicle, insured by the Claimant, had been stolen. The Defendant has been ordered to pay back the £19,000 paid under the policy in addition to the award of exemplary damages.

• Howell v Jones Price Ltd

  Civil & Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a case involving alleged injury in a road traffic accident. The Court found the claim to be fundamentally dishonest on the basis that the alleged injury was ‘fabricated’.

• Forde v Barton

  Civil & Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a case involving alleged injury arising from a road traffic accident. The Court determined the claim to be fundamentally dishonest commenting that the evidence of the Claimant went outside the boundaries of permissible exaggeration and was ‘frankly just made up’.

• P&P v I

  Civil & Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a case involving alleged injury arising from a road traffic accident in which the Claimants were driving instructor and pupil and had disclosed dashcam footage from their vehicle. The Court determined both claims to be fundamentally dishonest on the basis the contact was incapable of causing any injury.

• Ahmed v Zurich Insurance Plc

  Civil & Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a case involving alleged injury arising from a road traffic accident. The Court determined the claim to be fundamentally dishonest on the basis that the Claimant was not injured and had deliberately misled the medical experts in relation to seeking medical attention and his previous medical history.

• Azemi v Advantage

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a case involving alleged injury in a road traffic accident. The Court found the claim to be fundamentally dishonest by way of gross exaggeration.

• ROGERS & ORS v PEARSON & ESURE

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Second Defendant in the defence of 4 claims by the Claimants alleging injury arising from a road traffic accident. The claims were all found to be fundamentally dishonest with DJ Khan in the County Court sitting at Worcester describing the claims as ‘as clear an example as I have known of claims which are fundamentally dishonest’.

• SHAHZAD v TIDD & LV

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendants in a claim by the Claimant alleging injury arising from a road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest to include application of section 57. DDJ Mahmood sitting in the County Court at Bradford found that the Claimant knew he was not injured and pursued a claim regardless.

• Fennel v Zurich

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a claim by Claimant alleging injury arising from a road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest to include application of section 57. DJ Middleton sitting in the County Court at Truro found that the Claimant had given evidence about an alleged injury which he simply ‘cannot accept’.

• Karim v Advantage

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a claim by Claimant alleging injury arising from a road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest. DJ Etherington sitting in the County Court at Stoke-on-Trent found that the Claimant had fabricated a claim for injury noting that the Claimant’s evidence 'was entirely false in relation to injury and only being crafted so as to make a claim'.

• Abbas & Others v Craven & Advantage Insurance Company Ltd

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendants in a claim by 3 Claimants involving allegations of 2 ghost passengers and LVI. The claims were all found to be fundamentally dishonest (‘FD’). DDJ Waite sitting in the County Court at Bradford found that the Second and Third Claimants were not in the vehicle driven by the First Claimant and not only had the First Claimant fraudulently supported their claims but was not, in fact, injured herself.

• KANAGASABAY v BABINGTON

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a claim by the Claimants alleging injury arising from a minor road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest (‘FD’). DJ Haisley sitting in the County Court at Manchester found that the Claimant had misled his expert notably by reference to his various social media profiles showing him cycling when he claimed he was unable to do so. The DJ concluded that 'the inconsistencies are so many and so significant in totality I am driven to find the claim is FD'.

• MASTER JAKUB SIKORA & OTHERS V MS KIRSTIE HANSON

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a claim by the Claimants alleging injury arising from a minor road traffic accident. The claims were found to be fundamentally dishonest (‘FD’). DDJ Masheder sitting in the County Court at Barnsley found that the accident was not capable of causing injury and the Claimants did not suffer any injury at all citing among his reasons for making a finding of FD that the Third Claimant in respect of her claim and that of the First Claimant (acting as her son’s litigation friend) was ‘making it up as she went along’.

• Warren & Warren v Haley

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a claim by the Claimants alleging injury arising from a minor road traffic accident. The First Claimant brought her own claim and a claim on behalf of the Second Claimant, her son, as his Litigation Friend. The claims were found to be fundamentally dishonest (‘FD’). DJ Dodsworth sitting in the County Court at Sunderland found that the Claimants did not suffer any injury at all citing among his reasons for making a finding of FD that the First Claimant did not take the Second Claimant to Hospital as she had alleged in her evidence.

• Shahid v Tradewise

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  In a remote trial, represented the Defendant Insurer in a claim by the driver of a Bus alleging injury arising from a minor road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest as although the accident was capable of causing injury the Claimant had given dishonest evidence in relation to alleged injury, in particular claiming to have been in severe and immediate pain contrary to what was shown by the footage from the Bus’s cameras. DJ Goodchild sitting in the County Court at Manchester found ’the claim and the evidence given dishonest’ and fundamentally so.

• Lacatus v Esure Insurance Limited

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  In a remote trial, represented the Defendant Insurer in a claim involving a road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest. DJ Foster sitting in the County Court at Bradford found that the contact between the vehicles was not capable of causing injury and rejected the Claimant’s assertion he was injured. In dismissing the case and making the finding of fundamental dishonesty the Learned Judge commented that there were ‘multiple untruths’ in the claim and he 'could not accept anything the Claimant says about his assertion of injury’.

• SHARPELS V GAP HOLDINGS LIMITED

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Represented the Defendant in a claim for injury and various special damages arising from a road traffic accident in which breach of duty and causation were in dispute. The Court apportioned liability at 50:50 but went on to dismiss the claim in its entirety and make a finding of fundamentally dishonesty on the grounds that the Claimant had not suffered any injury at all despite his assertions of the same. In making the finding, DDJ Mawdsley, sitting at the County Court in St Helens, commented that whilst this was a genuine accident for which the Clamant was not entirely responsible, this is a dishonest claim for injury and it is fundamentally so.

• Zajanckauskas v Aviva Insurance Limited

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Represented the Defendant in a claim involving a minor road traffic accident in which breach of duty and causation were in dispute. The Court found in favour of the Defendant on breach of duty and also made a finding that the claim was fundamentally dishonest on the grounds that not only was the accident not capable of causing injury but the Claimant was not, in fact, injured at all. In making the finding, DDJ Mahmood, sitting at the County Court in Bradford, commented that is was not a case in which the Claimant was exaggerating but a case in which he was ‘simply dishonest’.

• Metcalfe v LV

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a personal injury claim arising out of a minor road traffic accident. In a remote trial heard by CVP before HHJ Coe the claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest as the accident was not capable of causing injury and the Claimant had tried to attribute pre-existing symptoms to the accident ‘in hope of additional monies’.

• Westmerland v Esure

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a case in which the Claimant’s wife had told her insurance company (the Defendant) he was not injured. In making a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty HHJ Sephton QC commented that he was drawn to the conclusion, without any doubt, the Claimant did not suffer any significant injury and had come to Court to tell lies.

• Chowdhury v Quinn

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant/Respondent before the DCJ of Newcastle. Successfully opposed application for permission to appeal the decision of the lower Court to strike out a claim for failure to comply with CPR22 and the Practice Direction thereto pertaining to certificates of translation. The Appellate Court agreed the Learned Deputy District Judge had been correct to make a show cause order for wasted costs against the Claimant’s Solicitors and, alternatively, disapply the provisions of QOCS pursuant to CPR44.15(1)(a) and (c).

• Thomas v Advantage Insurance

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a causation case involving late notification of personal injury. Finding of Fundamental Dishonesty by HHJ Gargan (Designated Civil Judge for Cleveland and South Durham). The Learned Judge found that the Claimant was deliberately suppressing evidence when failing to report significant and relevant pre-existing medical conditions to the medical expert.

• Saghir v Akhtar & Advantage Insurance

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Represented the Second Defendant in a causation case in which the Claimant was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her mother and brought a claim for personal injury against her mother and the insurance company some 25 months post accident. The Court, in making a finding of fundamental dishonesty, found that the Claimant’s alleged injuries were ‘complete fabrication’ and a ‘complete undermining of the Court system’.

• Troy v ERS

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a causation case involving CCTV evidence of the accident, a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty was made in respect of the claim on the basis of the District Judge concluding that the Claimant gave inconsistent accounts he must have known were wrong or known were not genuinely true when he gave them.

• Inness v Bage

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant, a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty was made against the Claimant in an LVI case in which it was found the Claimant had deliberately exaggerated the circumstances of a road traffic accident to pursue a dishonest personal injury claim. The Court found that the Claimant was not injured and that the severity of the contact between the two vehicles was such that he did not experience movement capable of causing injury. An enforceable costs order was made against the Claimant.

• York v Forbes

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant in a causation case involving late notification of personal injury. Finding of Fundamental Dishonesty by HHJ Gargan (Designated Civil Judge for Cleveland and South Durham). The Learned Judge rejected the Claimant’s evidence as being ‘wholly incredible and inconsistent’ and found he was ‘making up’ answers to account for the deficiencies in his evidence.

• Williams v Manders & KGM Motor Insurance

  Civil & Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendants, a finding of fundamental dishonesty against the Claimant in a claim for personal injury arising out of a road traffic accident, in which the Court made a finding the Claimant was not genuinely injured.

• Fithon v Highways Insurance

  A successful appeal to the High Court of a first instance decision at trial by HHJ Bird. The Learned Judge made findings that the Claimant had 'greatly exaggerated' his injuries but that that did not meet the hurdle for fundamental dishonesty ('FD'). The Honourable Mrs Justice Andrews in overturning the decision, making a finding of FD and stripping the Claimant of QOCS protection to costs here and below pursuant to CPR44.16 commented that the inference drawn from the finding of fact and the documents all go in one direction and that this is a dishonest exaggeration even if it was not a dishonest claim from the outset and on that finding section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is engaged.

• Adenuga v Zurich

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant Insurer in a ghost passenger case in which the Claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest in supporting the related passenger claims and each of the alleged passengers giving oral evidence were found to have lied about being in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The Claimant’s claim was dismissed pursuant to section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and an enforceable costs order was made pursuant to CPR44.16 (QOCS exception).

• Hyde v Castings Plc

  Advised on and ran to trial a case involving a Claimant who had brought multiple claims against his employer after having been sacked for dishonestly amending work documents amounting to gross misconduct. The Claimant discontinued at the doors of Court.

• Dobson v ERS Syndicate Management Limited

  Civil and Insurance Fraud

  Representing the Defendant Insurer in a claim arising out of a road traffic accident where liability and causation were in issue. The District Judge made a finding that the claim was fundamentally dishonest and that the Claimant ‘was a liar from start to finish’. The Court made an enforceable costs order against the Claimant pursuant to CPR44.16 (exception to QOCS).

• Sawings v Nichols

  Civil Fraud

  Representing the Defendant. Finding of Fundamental Dishonesty by the Court on Application post the Claimant's notice of discontinuance in a case involving transcripts of telephone calls in which the Claimant confirmed he was not injured or in pain at the time he alleged to be off work due to the severity of injuries allegedly sustained in the index accident. Enforceable costs orders pursuant to CPR44.16 were also obtained.

• Hassan v Insure the Box

  Representing the Defendant, finding of Fundamental Dishonesty against the Claimant on Application to the Court in a case where a notice of discontinuance was served the day before a trial in a late intimation claim which included a recording of the Claimant threatening to claim for whiplash if the Defendant did not arrange for his vehicle to be repaired.

• Mayne v Aviva

  Representing the Defendant, obtained a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty in respect of the claim on application at the conclusion of a trial where there was an entirely put to proof Defence as the Defendant's insured had died prior to notification of the case.

  The case was heard before the DCJ of Newcastle.

• Calcina v Prestige Estates (North East) Limited

  Personal Injury

  For the Defendant in a case where the Claimant discontinued and the Defendant proceeded to obtain a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty on Application to the Court resulting in an enforceable costs order against the Claimant in a claim involving a workplace accident.

• Korczynski v Garbrah

  Personal Injury/RTA

  Decision in favour of the Defendant before the Regional Costs Judge on an important point arising from the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents. It was held that the Claimant was not entitled to send the Stage 3 Court Proceedings Pack prior to the expiry of the total consideration period and the Defendant was at liberty to accept the Claimant's stage 2 offer at any stage during that period notwithstanding any lower counter-offer made.

  A full copy of the Judgement is available upon request.

• Raza & Din v Liverpool Victoria

  Personal Injury/RTA

  Successful Defence of an LVI claim including a finding of fundamental dishonesty in a QOCS case leading to an enforceable costs order under CPR 44.16.

• Re JT

  HCPC Regulatory matter

  Successfully kept Registrant on the Social Worker Register.

• Fallon & Lemos v Bennett-Threlfall

  Personal Injury

  Successful strike out of a claim to which QOCS applied for the Defendant on procedural grounds leading to engagement of the QOCS exception under CPR44.15.

• R v Smith & Nicholas

  Regulatory

  Prosecution Junior in the largest Regulatory Prosecution by Stoke-on-Trent City Council involving fraud and the Cattle Identification Regulations.

• Hunter v San Marino Restaurant

  Occupiers Liability

  Successful defence in an Occupiers' Liability case involving the application of the Court of Appeal principles from Dawkins v Carnival Plc.