Report comment

I did not read it as a "gross" exaggeration of the injuries, although the trail judge described "inconsistencies". It appears that the evidence actually given by the claimant was not exaggerated, although it did not support the expert report care claim. The thread of the cases to date (albeit few) suggests that there has to be a pretty clear example of dishonesty for the claimant to be penalised, as the Sinfield case cited in this judgment. I note that the claimant only recovered 75% of his costs, although it is not clear why - the exaggerated care claim may have something to do with it.