Report comment

I don't believe there should be an uplift for general damages if a claimant overcomes an assertion of fundamental dishonesty. I don't think there is any logical basis for that.

Re anonymous at 17:08. I might be missing the point here, but if a defence is only that the claim was FD and the defendant fails to prove that on balance, then the claimant would get all of their costs, would they not? Or are you saying that there should be an additional costs penalty? Like costs on the standard basis or indemnity basis or something like that? If that is what you are saying, then I would say as follows:

1. Just because a FD defence/allegation did not prevail, does not mean that it was raised unreasonably.
2. If a FD defence was raised unreasonably, then I would expect the court to penalise the defendant in costs in some way.

It seems strange to complain about insurers in the comments section of an article where claimants have been found by a judge to have brought fundamentally dishonest claims. You can blame insurers for a lot of things, but not the dishonest actions of a claimant!