3PB Personal Injury Barrister Luke Ashby secures finding of fundamental dishonesty

3rd May 2018

In Singh v 1. Takhar 2. Probus Insurance, Luke Ashby successfully defended a dishonest claim made against Probus Insurance.  Luke was instructed by Zoe Alexander of Kennedys after the Claimant alleged he was injured in a road traffic accident.

The Claimant said he was driving his vehicle in Gravesend when another vehicle (on hire from Hertz) travelled the wrong way down a one way street, pulled out from a side road and into the Claimant’s car.

The Claimant brought proceedings against the alleged driver/hirer (the First Defendant) and against Probus Insurance (as Second Defendant).  The First Defendant played no part in the proceedings and did not co-operate with Hertz - clearly hire companies are concerned when they hire cars that are involved in accidents only for the hirer to disappear.

To support his claim the Claimant produced an engineer’s report (from three months after the alleged accident) which stated his car was unroadworthy.  However, the Claimant’s car underwent an MOT test after the accident but before his engineer’s report was produced.  Kennedys solicitors obtained those MOT test results which showed the Claimant’s vehicle passed the MOT and was roadworthy.  The Judge found this to be highly significant.

The Judge found the Claimant’s evidence to be contradictory and at times untruthful.  At other points the Claimant’s evidence was found to be implausible and somewhat suspicious.

The Claimant had produced an alleged witness in support of his case.  However, during cross examination it was shown the witness had some undisclosed mutual acquaintances with the First Defendant (who had taken no part in the proceedings).

During cross examination the Claimant’s personal injury claim came into sharp focus.  In his Claim Notification Form the Claimant said he sought medical attention, this was shown to be untrue.  The Claimant also told his medical expert that his own GP advised him to take painkillers, this was again shown to be untrue.  The Claimant described the pain he suffered as severe, but the Claimant did not mention such pain when seeing his GP for other matters during this time, this was found to be untrue.

The claim was dismissed in is entirety.  The Judge found the claim was fundamentally dishonest and disapplied qualified one way costs shifting.  The Judge went further and found the claim was fabricated.

This case serves as a salutary reminder of the increasingly robust approach hire companies, insurers, solicitors, barristers and courts are taking to the issue of dishonest claims.  Those who persist in bringing dishonest claims should be aware that insurance companies and those they instruct will subject claims to rigorous analysis and testing as well as robust cross examination, especially where hire vehicles are involved.