Report comment

The point is not so much whether it was pleaded to crystal clear precision, but whether it was sufficiently clear as to the issues in the case that the claimant would be expected to deal with at trial. The judgment makes clear there was no ambush. This was not a bolt out of the blue for the claimants.

I struggle to find sympathy with any claimant who has been found, by a judge, to have brought a fundamentally dishonest claim. Crowing about insurers having their cake and eating it is besides the point: if a judge has deemed the claim fundamentally dishonest, that a problem with the claimant, not the insurer. The claimant has brought a fraudulent claim and that really is as serious as it gets in civil litigation so why should the court be prevented from dealing robustly with such claimants?

The point made about there being no fundamental dishonesty penalty for defendants is not a good one. If a defendant is found to have acted dishonestly, they are liable to face contempt proceedings. If any claimant solicitor genuinely believes they have a dishonest defendant, then what is stopping you pursuing them in the tort of deceit or via committal proceedings? Of course, claimant's have QOCS, which means that there has to be a mechanism to deal with costs when a claimant has been dishonest, otherwise QOCS really would be open season for litigation.