Report comment

Judges are meant to be impartial. It is no part of a judge's job to "back" insurance companies, any more than it is to favour claimants.

Section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 gives courts the power to punish fraudulent claimants, but that does not mean that every over-stated claim is fraudulent or fundamentally dishonest. There has to be a degree of manufacturing involved in it, i.e. a deliberate attempt to claim something to which the claimant could not possibly be entitled, or to assist a co-claimant in doing so.

Some insurance companies have become reckless in their allegations. Their legal advisors seem to forget that it is a professional offence to put forward an allegation of fraud, without there being very good evidence supporting it. Although the standard of proof is still the civil standard, not the criminal standard, the courts will still look very carefully at the evidence. It is the defendant's job to prove the fraud.

Judges have to assess facts based upon the evidence in front of them. The fact that a judge might not see the evidence in the same light as the insurer does not mean that the judge is wrong.