Report comment

as a solicitor I look for facts not fiction. and in determining fact over fiction I would rather be in court rather than in debate. to fight fraud you must be able to define it and then fight it. the platform for fraud is in the courts not in policies that restrict our lives. any corporation or government that wishes to muddy the definition of fraud in cases or rather remove its definition in policies so that there is no distinction between the honest and the dishonest person such as imposing at carpet ban on claims, those bodies are a risk to the access to justice, the rule of law and the public trust.
in my PI practice I don't see much fraud because insurers will not plead it due to losing fixed costs. in fact their law firms conceal the true nature of their defence until the day (should) the claim fail for what ever reason . defences are designed to award fixed costs to claimants if those defences fail , but should the defence be successful then , suddenly the case turns into a fraud case. but we are in the problem today because there is no guidance on defining fraud . defences are left open to go either way depending on the way the litigation goes , where those LSI cases are concerned, K v K establishing the principle that the defendant can run a fraud case without pleading fraud does seem against public policy in todays climax.
but what ever the motive for fraud , fraud back in the day was always a claimant motive for financial gain , but actually today the existence of fraud (when fraud first exists by those those define it)I cant help but feel is a defendants motive for enforcing their costs. and when an allegation of fraud is made that will always follow a claim for costs, one should also be wary where and why that allegation was made. I have sent defendants packing with their CPR 44.15&16 applications. when the rules committee rebalanced one way costs shifting with the caveat that fraud is a way an insurer can recover their legal bill, it doesn't surprise me why we are here today. every RTA is capable of being defend as fraud. there appears to be a presumption all cases are a fraud unless the claimant wins! leaving every other case lost, discontinued and simply abandoned as government fraud stats. but before the insurers break out the Champaign, a new future of PI is being created, insurers will soon learn the high penalty for malicious , oppressive and decieiful conduct arising from delay, under settlement tactics , unfounded allegations and wrongful denials in another sort of compensation payable to claimants even if whiplash is not.