The Court has the power under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to strike out a personal injury claim where the Claimant is shown to be ‘fundamentally dishonest’ and did just that in the case of Darnley v Cornish https://www.stjohnschambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Darnley-v-Cornish.pdf
The Claimant had been injured while cycling on a bicycle that had been provided to him by his race sponsors. The Claimant had signed a witness statement referring to the bicycle as his own and in oral evidence he first suggested that he and his partner had paid £4,000 for the bicycle before then stating that it had been given to him to race on by his sponsor, but he was able to buy it from his sponsor if he wished to keep it. As to his account, the trial judge said:
“the claimant knowingly and intentionally misled the court and was extremely reluctant to explain the true position. He gave the firm impression that he had paid for the bike in the first place and under further cross-examination accepted that he simply had not. Frankly, I am baffled as to the purpose of this dishonesty. Had the bike been gifted as a promotional item or sponsorship by Tredz, the claimant
would still have an entirely valid claim for the value of it. Conversely, if it was clear that the bike still was owned by Tredz, then they could easily have been added as a second claimant and the damage was compensated. Instead, the claimant, for reasons which were unclear, has wasted court time and the efforts of the defendant’s counsel and solicitors in unpicking a situation
about which he could, and should, have been straightforward.”
A claim was also made for a damaged light, which was put at £574.92 and the evidence in support of the damage to the light was found to be vague. The Claimant’s account to the medico-legal experts who reported on his injuries was found by the trial judge to lack candour
At the trial, the Court did not find that the claim was ‘fundamentally’ dishonest and declined to strike out the claim. The Defendant successfully appealed and the claim was struck out by the appeal judge, so the Claimant ended up recovering nothing and was ordered to pay a five-figure sum towards the Defendant’s legal costs of the claim and appeal.
If the Claimant had given an accurate account of his injuries and ownership of the bicycle, he would have recovered damages and costs and his claim would likely have been resolved without the need for Court proceedings. It does not pay to exaggerate!