Legal Watch - Fraud - July 2014

Legal Watch: Counter Fraud July 2014

Taking the Fight to the Fraudsters Winning is not enough As insurers are only too aware, successfully defending a claim can often be a pyrrhic victory, as the fraudulent claimant walks away with no consequence, the insurer’s costs unpaid by his costs insurers, and with the fraudulent claimant having no assets, rendering a recovery action unattractive.

A growing body of case law supports the proposition that there is another way: contempt of court. A successful case of contempt of court is likely to lead to the fraudster being imprisoned.

Contempt of court is an ancient power of the court, to hold to account those who make a mockery of the tribunal. CPR 32.14 states that a party may be in contempt of court if they make a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

So what is required in order to persuade the court to hold a

In This Issue: Taking the Fight to the Fraudsters • Winning is not enough • Exemplary damages

Recent Successes • Perseverance and the importance of comparing and contrasting evidence • Investigations identify a fabricated insured • Pressure on claimants leads to strike out of claims • Evidence from a settled claimant leads to defeat of suspected bogus passenger claims

fraudster in contempt?

• Suspected staged accident/social media

The law has been consolidated into CPR 81. There are three

• Suspected staged accident with CCTV

stages to the proceedings.

First, the substantive proceedings should be concluded before a contempt application is put on its feet. The outcome

• Similar fact evidence • Solicitors acting without instructions

could be dismissal at trial (Quinn v Trifonovs), discontinuance,

• Fraud ring

or even settlement. In Fari v Homes for Haringey, the claim

• Tainting argument leads to strike out

was so grossly exaggerated that the claim was struck out, even though the claimant was otherwise entitled to £1500 damages. Our collegaues at Plexus Law acted for Homes for Haringey throughout the litigation.

Once the substantive proceedings are at an end, an application is made to the High Court for permission to bring a new case in contempt against the claimant. Permission is required to ensure that spurious claims are not made, having regard to the gravity of the punishment sought.

• Claimant not allowed to withdraw Part 36 offer • Pre-action disclosure application defended

Welcome to...

The application must be supported by an affidavit from the

be commenced and dealt with without delay. In South

lawyer, which should identify precisely what false statements

Wales Fire & Rescue v Smith the proceedings had taken so

the claimant is said to have made. The affidavit must exhibit

long to come to a head that the claimant was excused an

all the documents upon which the application is based

immediate prison sentence. Instead, a suspended sentence

and also set out any evidence which might go against the

was imposed which would not be executed, provided he

application. The affidavit has to be served on the claimant

paid the insurer’s costs.

in person.

The claimant is permitted to defend or admit the

At the application hearing, the court must decide if there is

proceedings; but retains the right against self-incrimination.

a sufficiently strong case to allow it to proceed. The court

If he does nothing, the insurer must prove the contempt

will need to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case that

beyond reasonable doubt. The claimant is entitled to call

the contempt will be proven, beyond reasonable doubt. The

evidence to rebut the allegations, which he is required to

judge deciding the permission hearing does not need to be

serve before the trial.

sure of the contempt himself, but needs to be satisfied that there is a strong case.

In the event the claim in contempt is successful, not only should the claimant expect imprisonment; he may also

In Fari, permission to proceed was granted because

be ordered to pay the insurers’ costs of the contempt

there was a clear line between what the claimant said she

proceedings. Given that a costs judgment is actionable for

had suffered, and what surveillance evidence revealed.

six years and fraudsters are generally imprisoned for less

Conversely, in RSA v Kosky permission was refused because

than a year, this should not be ignored by the applicant

there was not a clear-cut case when the surveillance was

insurer.

compared with the claimant’s statements.

Insurers should be under no illusion that contempt of

The judge will need to decide if there is public interest in

court is neither an inexpensive nor certain area; and an

allowing the case to proceed. Not every contempt should

application should only be made after careful consideration.

attract the sanction of imprisonment; it is only in particularly

They should also bear in mind that they may refer the case

serious cases that permission should be granted. In

to IFED if the evidence is sufficiently strong.

Trifonovs, permission was granted due to the clear public interest in punishing the claimant to deter others from pursuing fraudulent injury claims.

Jonathan Head T: 01489 882913 E: jnh@greenwoods-solicitors.com

The judge will also need to decide if it is proportionate to punish the claimant for his contempt. The majority of cases where permission has been granted have been cases where the claimant has exaggerated his injury claim; and the difference between the true value of his damages and his claim as presented has shown clear proportionality in bringing the contempt proceedings. In Liverpool Victoria v Bashir, the claimant’s claim had been modest – in the

Exemplary damages A series of cases suggests that insurers should be pleading exemplary damages as part of a counterclaim where fraud is suspected. But, what are the circumstances when such damages are unlikely to be awarded and are there any steps to be taken to improve the prospects of success?

bracket of £5000 – 15000; but the judge held that the fraud

Fifty years ago in Rookes v Barnard [1964] A.C. 1129 (the

committed was of a most serious kind and found that a

leading case on exemplary damages), Lord Devlin stated

prison sentence was justified.

that “the object of exemplary damages is to punish and

Once permission is granted, contempt proceedings must

deter”. He identified that exemplary damages could be awarded where the fraudulent claimant’s conduct has been

calculated by him to make a profit for himself, which may

caution for fraudulently claiming that her caravan had

well exceed the compensation payable to the insurance

been sold as the court decided that the caution was

company.

not significant in light of the nature of the offence, the

Unfortunately their use thereafter was restricted to only certain types of action and it was not until 13 years ago that the matter was reconsidered by the Supreme Court (then the House of Lords) in Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2001] UKHL 29.

amount of money and the need to deter against future similar activities.

2. The claimant must know about the claim and should have the opportunity to respond • In Tasneem & Others v Morley there was no prejudice

The view was taken that the important factor was the

to the claimants who had had ample opportunity to

behaviour of the defendant and awards by the lower courts

respond and to attend the hearing and had chosen to

(only a small proportion of which are reported) now suggest

do neither.

a greater appetite for the imposition of exemplary damages.

Further to the reported decisions in AXA Insurance v Thwaites (2008), AXA Insurance v Jensen (2008), Direct Line v Suleman (2010), AXA Insurance v Shaikh (2010) and Liverpool Victoria v Ghadha & Iqbal (2010), the matter of Tasneem & Others v Morley came before Her Honour Judge May QC in September 2013, sitting at Central London

3. The claimant’s means are a relevant factor Asset checks should be undertaken where possible and cases chosen carefully. Is the court likely to award exemplary damages against a claimant with limited means and will the insurer recover such damages? Do the benefits of deterrence and punishment outweigh the cost?

County Court. The court was asked to award exemplary

• In Tasneem & Others v Morley the claimants had not

damages against claimants involved in nine connected

provided any information concerning their means

actions which had already been struck out. Additional

despite the opportunity to do so. The judge found she

exemplary damages were awarded against all parties, save

did not need to take into account the absence of such

for the lead claimant who already had to bear the brunt of

evidence as a restricting factor in the awards made.

costs in the proceedings.

These decisions provide useful guidance in bringing such claims before the courts.

1. Is the claimant being criminally prosecuted?

Exemplary damages are more likely to be awarded in the absence of criminal penalties to avoid a double penalty.

Can evidence be provided to the court about impending prosecutions?

• In Tasneem & Others v Morley none of the claimants were to face prosecution.

• In Axa Insurance UK Plc v Thwaites the claimant

• In Liverpool Victoria v Ghadha and Iqbal the court awarded exemplary damages of £500 and £1000 because the claimants were of limited means.

4. How much will the award be?

There is no specific formula, but some broad guidance.

The courts will consider the profit that the claimant has sought to obtain or a percentage of the basic claim that the claimant made. In a fraud case insurers should be able to recover their costs on an indemnity basis. Where costs are in excess of the claim value, are exemplary damages on top appropriate?

• In Tasneem & Others v Morley the strength of the

received a suspended sentence for deception and

message of deterrence was held to be in the overall

exemplary damages were not awarded.

amount that claimants are obliged to pay. Where

• However, in AXA Insurance UK Plc v Jensen, exemplary damages were awarded where the claimant received a

the costs against the lead claimant were in excess of £44000 this was held to be a sufficient deterrent

and further exemplary damages were not awarded.

potential outcome of the claimant’s conduct well exceeds

Exemplary damages were however still awarded against

the punishment and deterrent effect that can be achieved

the other claimants.

by an award of compensatory costs and damages.

The general tendency of the courts is to award around 50% of those damages sought.

• In AXA Insurance v Jensen the claimant’s conduct was thought to be “relatively severe” and an additional 50% of the basic claim was awarded as exemplary damages.

• In AXA Insurance v Shaikh (2010) the claimant’s failure to mention his involvement in a further accident was found to be an “expensive nuisance” and 50% of the sum claimed by the insurer was awarded.

• In Direct Line v Suleman (2010) the insurer was awarded damages of £300,000 and an additional £92,000 in exemplary damages, just over 30%.

The principle is that one single award is made against multiple claimants.

• In Tasneem & Others v Morley the lower value of claims of passengers as against the higher value claims of drivers was a restricting factor, although not an absolute restriction. Exemplary damages were awarded of £2000 per driver and £1000 per passenger.

5. Request recovery for in-house investigation costs • In Liverpool Victoria v Ghadha & Iqal the insurance company were awarded £750 for in-house costs.

• In Tasneem & Others v Morley the judge found that the cumulative impact of these low-value fraudulent claims is huge and that insurance companies should be properly compensated for their reasonably incurred investigation costs of £1000 per claimant.

Exemplary damages are an important weapon in a defendant’s armoury; they have a strong deterrent effect, can prove invaluable as a negotiating device and often result in claims being discontinued. Claims for exemplary damages can be brought as a counterclaim when the defence is filed or at a later date should new evidence arise.

However, cases should be chosen with care before proceeding to a hearing. Courts must be persuaded that the

Lindsey Bartling T: 0207 462 3456 E: lab@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Recent Successes Perseverance and the importance of comparing and contrasting evidence

Investigations identify a fabricated insured

AK, SM & IM v S Insurance Company

Rafiq Fasar v S Insurance Company; Sadaqat Hussain v Robert Wilkinson & S Insurance Company

Gloucester and Cheltenham County Court

Walsall County Court Three claimants alleged they were passengers in the

4, 5 & 6 March 2014

insured’s vehicle which failed to stop at a junction and collided into a passing vehicle. The passing vehicle did not

These two claims were tried together as both concerned

stop and remained untraced. The insured supported his

an accident alleged to have occurred on 23 January 2011.

passengers’ claims and indemnity was reserved.

Both claimants claimed that the insured’s van collided with

Although initially there were a small number of concerns

Hussain’s Range Rover, causing this to collide with Fasar’s

and limited claims history, the evidence gathered revealed

Vauxhall Vectra.

multiple and substantial discrepancies. The insured’s vehicle

Our client adduced evidence showing that there was no

damage was found to have been largely consistent, but

trace of the insured at his given address; that the family

engineering evidence suggested that the passing vehicle

living at the given address had lived there for seven years

may not have been driveable post collision. The claimants

and had no knowledge of the insured; that notwithstanding

failed properly to reveal their claims histories and pre-

his occupation allegedly being a hospital doctor, the insured

existing conditions. Their claims that sporting activities were

was not registered with the General Medical Council; and

affected were found to be untrue and there was no evidence

that the bank account used to purchase the insured’s policy

of their alleged absences from work and education.

had been used to purchase a further policy of insurance,

Part 35 questions, in conjunction with witness evidence

against which a number of suspicious claims had been

and GP records, revealed the claimants’ evidence to

presented.

be misleading, including their excuses as to why the

At trial, Recorder Mainds found that the claimants were

pre-examination questionnaires had not been properly

unreliable witnesses (he was assisted in this regard by the

completed and their own medical expert agreed the

fact that Hussain failed to attend for the third day of the trial

claimants were unreliable.

and withdrew his instructions to his solicitors and counsel).

The claimants’ solicitors removed themselves from the

The judge found that the insured was a “ghost”, fabricated

court record and we negotiated recovery of costs directly

for the purpose of bringing these claims and that the

from the claimants. Estimated overall savings for the client

accident itself was a fabrication. He dismissed the claims in

were in the region of £60000.

their entirety. Our efforts led to a saving against reserve for

For further information regarding this matter, please contact

our client in the sum of £302956.

Lindsey Bartling

For further details regarding this matter, please contact

T: 020 7462 3456 E: lab@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Howard Chater T: 01908 298205 E: hxc@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Pressure on claimants leads to strike out of claims ES, CF & JC v MH & S Insurance Company; MY v MH & S Insurance Company Our insurer client was presented with six claims from alleged occupants of two vehicles involved in an alleged accident on 6 July 2011.

A defence was filed, highlighting a number of discrepancies in the evidence presented by the parties, particularly with regards to the evidence presented by the third party driver, Michael Yates.

The fourth claimant failed to comply with court directions and an unless order was obtained, with a strike out provision.

He failed to comply with this unless order and his claim was struck out in January 2014.

Evidence from a settled claimant leads to defeat of suspected bogus passenger claims NI & YZ v EC & S Insurance Company Staines County Court 29 May 2014 A genuine accident occurred on 7 October 2010 on Goldsworth Road, Woking, Surrey.

The insured failed to co-operate and some two and a half years later claims were brought by two alleged passengers in the insured vehicle. This raised suspicion as no mention had been made of these passengers previously.

Witness evidence was obtained from the driver of the third party vehicle, who had already had his own claim settled.

He was adamant that there was only one person in the third

Two litigated claims remained and these were listed for a

party vehicle and it was decided his evidence was strong

trial between 12 and 17 May 2014. We continued to maintain

enough to proceed to trial.

pressure on the remaining claimants, putting them on notice as to the discrepancies that we would be expecting them to address in cross-examination. This pressure led to the claimants withdrawing instructions from their solicitors shortly prior to the trial and we secured orders for strike out of the claims.

Our efforts led to a saving against reserve for our client in the sum of £136728.

Before trial we made an application as the claimants had failed to provide medical records when requested.

We

also applied to disallow the claimants from relying on the documents within their List of Documents, as the version of the list filed was illegible.

At the application hearing immediately before the trial, the judge agreed to debar the claimants from relying on any medical evidence and refused permission for them to call

For further information regarding this matter, please contact

the first defendant as a witness. The judge found that:

Howard Chater

• (a) The court could not ignore the failure to provide a list

T: 01908 298205 E: hxc@greenwoods-solicitors.com

of documents in time • (b) The failure was more than trivial because it deprived the second defendant of knowing whether the medical records would be disclosed for three weeks and therefore delayed the issue of its application, which had to be heard on the morning of trial. The trial could then not go ahead if further disclosure were ordered • (c) There is an automatic sanction under CPR 31.21 debarring reliance on documents not disclosed, or, if not automatic, the overriding objective and need to enforce

compliance with court orders demanded a strong sanction • (d) The appropriate sanction would be to debar the claimants from relying on any medical evidence; and • (e) No relief from sanction would be granted because

Suspected staged accident/social media NB, EW & LR v FW & A Insurance Company Eight claims were intimated following this alleged accident.

there was no written application for relief and, in any

The file was sent to us with concerns the accident was

event, there did not appear to be any good reason for

staged as there was a Facebook friend connection between

the default.

the two vehicles.

After the decision, the parties were given time to take further instructions and the claimants sensibly decided to accept a drop hands offer to withdraw with no order as to costs rather than run the risk of a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

The result led to a fraud saving of almost £60000.

For further information regarding this matter, please contact Stephen Lawrence T: 020 7462 3424 E: sdl@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Further research showed the connection was established just two weeks prior to the accident and further links were identified to the third party driver’s Facebook page for his business.

Previously completed Part 18 responses by the passengers of the insured vehicle described the damage to the vehicle.

The damage described did not match the engineer’s report.

Further Part 18 responses denied knowing any of the parties contrary to the social media evidence.

As a result fraud was pleaded. The claimants’ solicitors came off record and the three litigated claims were discontinued/ struck out. The remaining five claims were withdrawn. The saving was £64185.

For further information regarding this matter please contact James Mansell T: 01908 298264 E: jcm@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Suspected staged accident with CCTV

Similar fact evidence

Lukasz Soroka v Jamie Calland & A Insurance Company

AKA v NS

Liverpool County Court

Central London County Court 21 May 2014

17 & 18 February 2014 This claim arose from a suspected slam on accident and The insured had incepted a policy online using a garage’s address just 17 days before the accident. He changed the address within minutes to his home address. The alleged accident occurred on the garage forecourt when the insured reversed into a stationary vehicle. Three claims were intimated; one from an alleged passenger in the insured vehicle and two from alleged passengers in the stationary vehicle, one of whom was the director of the garage.

CCTV footage was obtained by the garage. It showed an eight second clip of the accident but did not show persons getting into or out of the vehicles. It was not available for the insurer to view as it had been automatically deleted at the end of the month. The driver and owner of the stationary vehicle issued proceedings.

The claimant’s medical records evidenced a previous frozen shoulder injury not disclosed to the medical expert. The claims notification form, signed the day after the accident, stated he had whiplash injuries, yet he told the medical expert his injuries did not materialise for three days.

The claimant alleged that he was at the garage having been out with the director buying tools. However, bank statements obtained did not match with this allegation.

fraud was pleaded within the defence.

We applied for permission to rely upon a witness statement from a driver involved in a similar previous accident with the claimant, even though this earlier accident had been found to have been genuine. The claimant objected to our application to rely on this similar fact evidence.

At the hearing of the application on the morning of the trial, the judge granted permission for the defendant to rely upon the similar fact evidence. The judge took the view that even though fraud is not proven in another accident, this does not mean that the facts of that earlier accident are not relevant when deciding whether the index accident is fraudulent.

We also took the point that the claimant’s witness statements had been served out of time and no application for relief from sanctions had been made by the claimant.

The judge ordered that the claimant’s solicitors provide a witness statement, explaining why the statements had been served late.

Following the application hearing, the claimant made an offer to discontinue with no order as to costs, which was accepted by our client on an economic basis.

An article was located confirming the insured had twice

This led to a saving against reserve in the region of £38000.

previously been convicted of fraud. At the trial of this case

For further information regarding this matter please contact

at Liverpool County Court the claims were found to have been fraudulent. This resulted in a £64400 saving with an

Mark Rudd

order that the claimant pays our costs on an indemnity basis

T: 020 7079 4623

and returns the interim payment made to him for his vehicle

E: mdr@greenwoods-solicitors.com

damage. Recovery of costs is ongoing.

For further information regarding this matter please contact James Mansell T: 01908 298264 E: jcm@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Solicitors acting without instructions

NM v SI

The following is a case we were involved in where the

Romford County Court

solicitors were caught out acting without instructions.

Those of you who read the last edition of Legal Watch: Fraud may recall a similar case being reported. A trend is emerging of old, repudiated cases coming back to life just before limitation and in several cases new solicitors have been appointed. If an old case reappears insurers need

We were instructed to defend claims brought by five claimants. The insured was the son of the claimants, who were elderly. The insured was also their carer and confirmed to us that the claimants did not wish to pursue their claims for personal injury.

to be satisfied that there is a claimant in the background

We took a statement from the insured confirming that the

providing instructions. Demand proof of ID by way of a utility

litigated claimant no longer wished to pursue her claim

bill and a signed mandate from the claimant that he has

and filed a defence confirming our position. We gave the

instructed X and Co to act for him. Inform the claimant’s

claimant 21 days to discontinue his claim following service

solicitors that it is a reasonable request given the length of

of the defence but he did not do so. Thereafter we applied

time that has lapsed and the previous instruction of another

to strike out the claim because it was an abuse of the court’s

firm of solicitors. If they refuse, reserve your right to bring

process.

this to the attention of the court on the issue of costs if it subsequently transpires they have no client.

For further information regarding this matter please contact Karen Mann

The claims were struck out and the claimant’s solicitors were ordered to pay our costs of the action (from 17 August 2013 when the defence was served).

For further information regarding this matter please contact

T: 020 7462 3469

Andrea Crisp

E: km@greenwoods-solicitors.com

T: 01908 298291 E: asf@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Fraud ring

Tainting argument leads to strike out

DB & RS v LD & A Insurance Company

Nicholas Elia & Ellie Elia v S Insurance Company Central London County Court

We were instructed to defend a suspected staged/contrived RTA that formed part of a fraud ring that centred around the claimant.

We filed an amended defence which pleaded fraud and obvious links between other similar accidents. We obtained engineering evidence and evidence that the insured vehicle

18 June 2014 This claim arose from an accident which occurred on 1 August 2011. It was accepted that an accident had occurred, but we argued that the damage to the claimant’s vehicle had been exaggerated.

was not damaged following the accident. We applied to re-

In support of our argument, we relied upon expert

amend the defence.

engineering evidence, which we alleged showed that the

The second claimant’s claim was struck out following his solicitors coming off record as acting for him, whilst the first

damage to the claimant’s vehicle was inconsistent with the collision with the defendant’s vehicle.

claimant discontinued and agreed to pay £2000 towards our

The court accepted our argument that the damage to the

costs.

first claimant’s vehicle had been fraudulently exaggerated

All pre issue claims have been withdrawn.

For further information regarding this matter please contact

and his claim for hire was dismissed.

The second claimant, who was an occupant of the first claimant’s vehicle, also saw her claim for personal injuries

Andrea Crisp

dismissed. The court found that even if the second claimant

T: 01908 298291

had sustained injury, it could not award damages due to her

E: asf@greenwoods-solicitors.com

participation in serious exaggeration.

For further information regarding this matter please contact Howard Chater T: 01908 298205 E: hxc@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Claimant not allowed to withdraw Part 36 offer

Pre-action disclosure application defended

PB v JN

TC v AC & A Insurance Company

Liverpool County Court

Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court

The claimant’s solicitors sought to withdraw a Part 36 offer

8 April 2014

within the 21-day relevant period as they had neglected to

This claim arose out of a road traffic accident in which our

include a claim for physiotherapy charges. This treatment

client’s insured was alleged to have driven into the rear of a

was not pleaded in the schedule of loss and there was no

third party vehicle. The insured’s mother was a passenger in

evidence that paid-for treatment had ever been undertaken.

the insured’s vehicle and had intimated a claim.

We objected to this and accepted the Part 36 offer, but the claimant’s solicitors chose to make an application to the court for permission to withdraw the offer.

At the hearing the claimant’s solicitors argued that the offer had clearly been a mistake and they should be allowed to withdraw it.

We instructed Ezra MacDonald of Pump Court Chambers and argued that: • (1) “Mistake” has to mean “mistake in law” • (2) The judgment of Pitchford J in Hilton International v Smith was binding: a party which makes a mistake may well be fixed with the consequences of that mistake (in that case, where the mistake was to pay in £46,000, rather than £6,000, the paying party had still been fixed with that error of judgment), and • (3) It would be disproportionate and counter to the overriding objective to grant the application, the amount in dispute being, at most, £500.

The claimant’s solicitors sought substantial pre-action disclosure from our client, which was refused, and we were instructed when the claimant’s solicitors made a pre-action disclosure application.

The claimant’s application was two-fold: • (1) Documents relating to engineering evidence, and • (2) Any other documents which would be disclosable in accordance with standard disclosure if proceedings were issued.

We were successful in our opposition and our insurer client was awarded costs. The judge commented in particular that: 1. The criteria in 31.16 was not fulfilled as the claimant should have no difficulty in pleading her case without the requested disclosure. This is a straightforward RTA claim and it would be disproportionate to order preaction disclosure.

The judge accepted our submissions, dismissed the

2. Our client had legitimate concerns, which were not

application and awarded costs to us. Part 36 is a strict

fanciful, and were raised in correspondence. It is a

regime and it would create uncertainty were parties able too

realistic concern that, in an era where sham accidents

readily to withdraw their offers. This would be counter to the

take place up and down the country, that unless the

purpose of Part 36.

claimant makes her case clear whatever is disclosed

For further information regarding this matter please contact Lindsey Bartling T: 020 7462 3456 E: lab@greenwoods-solicitors.com

by the second defendant may be used to tailor the claimant’s account of the accident.

3. It was a bit rich of the claimant to accuse the second defendant of failing to comply with the spirit of the pre-action protocol by refusing to put its cards on the

table when the claimant has refused to answer Part 18 questions. In any event the documents referred to specifically in the pre-action protocol would not apply in this case because there is no issue over where the damage is on the vehicles.

4. The claimant had been given an opportunity to withdraw the application and to walk away with the engineering evidence she requested. She had refused that opportunity and maintained that she should be entitled to wide-ranging disclosure of documents.

5. Having put the concerns to the claimant in correspondence (without disclosing the full extent and detail of the concerns to the claimant), it should have been apparent that engineering evidence would not resolve the dispute.

It is worth noting that our letter setting out our concerns and why the engineering evidence would not resolve the dispute made a crucial difference to the outcome of this application. By clarifying the damage issue and making it clear to the claimant that we had concerns with the claim without giving the game away and tipping her off, we were in a much stronger position to argue that the claimant had acted unreasonably, which ultimately led to the application being dismissed and an order for costs in our favour.

For further information regarding this matter please contact Karen Mann T: 020 7462 3469 E: km@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Welcome to...

Howard Chater and Emma Hayes We welcome Howard and Emma to Greenwoods, both of whom are based in our Milton Keynes office, having joined from Keoghs.

Howard joins as an associate and has acted exclusively for

Publications If you would like to receive any of the below, please email indicating which you would like to receive.

Weekly: • Legal Watch: Personal Injury Monthly:

motor insurers for the past 35 years. Howard spent the last

• Legal Watch: Property Risks & Coverage

eleven years within the Complex Fraud Team at Keoghs.

Quarterly:

Outside of work, Howard’s interests include travel,

• Legal Watch: Counter Fraud

photography and music. He also follows the fortunes of

• Legal Watch: Disease

Spurs football club, but describes himself as being more of

• Legal Watch: Health & Safety

a sympathiser than a supporter!

Emma joins as the head of our Intelligence Team. She has

• Legal Watch: Marine • Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity

worked in insurance since 2002 and became involved in intelligence work in 2006, first as an analyst and later as a team leader at Keoghs before moving to Greenwoods.

Emma describes herself as a passionate advocate of how much assistance intelligence can provide to the insurance

Contact Us

industry and she considers herself to have one of the most

For more information please contact:

interesting jobs around.

Emma previously lived in Greece for 11 years and maintains

Karen Mann Partner

an ability to speak Greek well.

T: 020 7462 3469

In her spare time, Emma likes to spend time with her family.

E: km@greenwoods-solicitors.com

She has three children who have a constant stream of ideas of how to fill her time.

To unsubscribe from this newsletter please email: crm@greenwoods-solicitors.com

www.greenwoods-solicitors.co.uk

www.plexuslaw.co.uk

The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations. This document speaks as of its date and does not reflect any changes in law or practice after that date. Plexus Law and Greenwoods Solicitors are trading names of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC315763. Registered office: 8 Bedford Park, Croydon, Surrey CR0 2AP. Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.