Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

@Guy Platt-Higgins; Commented on: 9 July 2018 13:10 GMT:

".....Take the Autofocus case (https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/defendant-firms-in-126m-credit-hire-claim-to-face-october-2018-hearing/5061416.article) - this is a good example of how sometimes it takes a higher Court to expose dishonesty.

In Autofocus, thousands of cases went to trial and lost at first instance because the Defendants so called experts fabricated their evidence. ..."

Tell me about this. I am not going to say who, but a Car Hire Firm I know, took on a case backwards (so called) from a Pet Garage. They got indemnity to litigate it (although they said it was on the Insured's behave it was pretty much on their own behalf as it was for their Car Hire Fees), and half the way through, dropped it as it was pointed out by Defendant Expert that 'no contact took place' between their vehicle and the alleged vehicle that they hit.

The SRA and Law Soc seemed quite content with what was going on.

Do we know any of the details of the claimants / drivers in particular yet?

Your details

Cancel