Report comment

@Simon Dewsbury
I suppose it would be a relatively simple matter for the court service to provide statistics on how many cases are issued and then discontinued- but the mere fact of a discontinuance is not evidence of fraud- and by what measure would you define a fraud defence?
Is it one where the defence alleges the claimant is an outright fraudster or a defence putting the claimant to proof, where there are clear elements of exaggeration in relation to some parts of the claim-which if proven to be the case can result in the claimant facing criminal sanction at the conclusion of a hearing?

As you will know, the burden of proof shifts in an outright defence pleading fraud,and there are professional consequences for the lawyer who pleads fraud too easily.
The insurers throw the term about too easily and loosely, and the definition of 'fraud' applied by lawyers will differ from the use by insurers - insurers will include exaggeration as part of their definition whereas claimant lawyers would approach that as part of their role in seeking to obtain the best outcome for their client