The areas of work in which we have particular expertise, experience and excellence.
For over a decade, our team of specialist barristers have been instructed by leading solicitors and insurers to defend against claims involving suspected personal injury insurance fraud.
Whilst motor insurance fraud has historically featured heavily, dishonest claims have increasingly been recognised in wider areas of personal injury litigation. Chambers has a depth of experience at all levels, including ranked individuals. Members of Chambers have:
The combined skills of Chambers, can provide a complete service in defending against Civil Fraud, whether for motor claims, casualty claims, costs and credit hire.
Khan v Aviva, Oxford County Court  11 WLUK 663 DJ Lumb
In this widely reported case, instructed by DWF, Roger André obtained a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty against the RTA claimant’s PI claim. However, in addition and of wider significance, following Roger’s cross examination of the Claimant’s witnesses and presentation of similar fact evidence, the Judge found it to be powerful and persuasive in demonstrating a similar pattern of action in numerous cases involving the same firm of solicitors, with the judge specifically finding, “In my judgment, this is clear evidence of the layering of this claim and others as alleged by the Defendants. The Judgment specifically referenced the claimant’s dishonest collusion with the solicitors, medical agency and other parties confirming that this was indeed a fundamentally dishonest claim.
Blake & oth v Advantage Insurance & oth (June 2022) Warwick CC
Although breach of duty against the insured was found, Roger André persuaded the Designated Civil Judge to make an order dismiss both Claimant’s PI claims and make a finding of FD under s.57 CJCA 2015 (due to exaggerated and dishonest PI claims). Accordingly, the credit hire element of the claim was struck out, with indemnity costs in favour of the Defendant insurer.
Elvidge v Covea  1 WLUK 576
Roger André represented the Defendant and obtained a finding of FD against the Claimant. Significantly, he also obtained a finding that his physiotherapist had presented a fraudulent invoice for “treatment” sessions, resulting in his referral to the Health & Care Professionals Tribunal Service. In subsequent proceedings, Roger obtained a Third Party Costs Order against the firm which issued the invoice.
Zaib v Cole (2020)
Dominique Smith acted for the Respondent in this appeal, where the Respondent was cross-appealing for a finding of fundamental dishonesty. At trial, the trial judge found the claimant’s evidence was “perforated with inconsistency” and that the claimant had exaggerated his claim, yet did not find him fundamentally dishonest. On appeal, HHJ Simpkiss held that a claimant who put forward such an inconsistent account, who could not explain aspects of his evidence and presented a different account of his injuries to the court, had to be fundamentally dishonest. He therefore dismissed the claimant’s claim under s57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
Ghani v Advantage Insurance 1.10.20, 26.3.21 Burnley County Court (FD – invoiced physiotherapy dates discrepancies and alleged CBT)
Roger André represented the Defendant in a claim which included damages for personal injuries, credit hire and physiotherapy treatment, arising from an RTA on 2.5.17. Amongst the reasoning for a FD finding were (i) the Claimant presented an invoice for physiotherapy treatment both pre-dating and on the day of his medical-litigation examination which was inconsistent with the fact that the expert made no mention of treatment having taken place in the Report, but recommended he commence treatment. (ii) The Judge was not satisfied that the Claimant had 8 (orally the Claimant could only remember one) or any CBT sessions – he had exaggerated his psychological symptoms.
Rehman v Aviva UK Insurance (Birmingham County Court, Recorder McLoughlin, 1 November 2019)
Tom Collins acted for the successful Defendant in a claim for damages arising out of a low speed motor accident. Claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest (per CPR 44.16) on the basis of inconsistencies including whether her vehicle was shunted or was still touching the Defendant’s insured vehicle after the accident. Found to have falsely reported ongoing neck symptoms to her medical expert a few days after confirming to her treating physiotherapist that she was fully recovered.
Akotiah v Piskorz (Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court, District Judge Bell, 16 August 2019)
Tom Collins acted for the successful Defendant in a claim for damages arising out of a low speed motor accident. Claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest (per CPR 44.16) on the basis of inconsistencies regarding the number of passengers in his vehicle, his injuries and the extent of the damage to his vehicle.
Aviva UK Insurance v Lawrence, (Oxford County Court, HHJ Clarke, 10 April 2018)
Tom Collins acted for the successful appellant in an appeal on the meaning of a ‘related claim’, per section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Arose out a “phantom passenger” claim where the disputed occupants had intimated but not issued claims. Held that even a pre-action claim constitutes a ‘related claim’.
Brighthouse Ltd v Tazegul  EWHC 2277 (QB)
Spencer J considered when it was appropriate to allow a Defendant’s appeal and order a retrial when fresh evidence suggested that the judge at first instance had been misled. In the instant case there was evidence to suggest that the Claimant and an allegedly independent witness in fact knew each other and had perjured themselves. There was a prima facie case of fraud and the matter was remitted back to the lower court for fresh determination. Ian Clarke represented the successful Defendant.