Report comment

I know of one DCJ whose head will pop over this decision!

How can Claimant be expected to prepare for a case they don't know about? Yes, the Defendant made it clear that they were questioning the Claimant's credibility but they didn't make it clear that they thought that the claim was bent. There is a subtle but distinct difference between a Defendant putting a Claimant to proof and arguing that the claim is fraudulent.

If a Defendant wants to argue that a claim is fundamentally dishonest they should specifically plead it and the case should be allocated to the appropriate (multi) track as a result of the pleading. If they lose the argument, they should then be expected to pay costs on a time and line (as opposed to fixed) basis. Otherwise, as anonymous @15:36 says, they are having their cake and eating it.