Recent years have seen the Courts being better equipped to deal with the question of how to deal with claimants who falsify or exaggerate claims. As a body of case law begins to develop, this issue of the PI Briefing traces its development, considers how it might assist those advising litigants in such claims and raises questions about possible future developments.
In this issue: Susanna Bennett considers the Supreme Court’s decision in Ivey v Genting and reviews recent authorities in which questions of fundamental dishonesty have been considered. Dominique Smith discusses the appropriateness of contempt proceedings in the light of findings of fundamental dishonesty. Ben Hicks asks whether it can ever be appropriate for the Court to have regard to the motives behind the evidence given by less than truthful claimants.
This week we examine an unusual arbitration case involving (or did it?) a foreign limitation period; and another decision on the tension between open justice and protection of commercially sensitive information (we understand, by the way, that on 25th February the Court of Appeal will…
This week we look at two decisions, both of which will be of critical importance to practitioners in pursuance of contested litigation. In one, unusually, without prejudice correspondence was admissible in a case involving fundamental dishonesty; whilst in the other, the court reviewed the authorities…
Following a 5-day liability trial in the High Court in Manchester, the Claimant’s negligence and Human Rights Act claims were dismissed by HHJ Bird sitting as a Judge of the High Court. The Claimant was a Type 1 diabetic who suffered from a history of…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR