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.


The other reason why this case is very different to the reported PI claims involving findings of fundamental dishonesty is that in those cases not only do the claimants lie to the court but they do so in order to inflate, or in some cases, completely invent injuries in order to profit. In the present case Ms Grondona was not only lending her name to her unreliable friend Mr Mitchell for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage (for his benefit), but in the present litigation was in effect also lending her name to the mortgagee because the purpose of her claim was not to profit, but to be able to partly repay her liability under the mortgage. If the CA had allowed the appeal it was more likely that Birmingham Midshires rather than Ms Grondona would have been the real loser. BM was entirely innocent having lost its money through (a) lending it to Ms Grondona and (b) having the misfortune of relying on Stoffel & Co to register its charge.

Your details