Fraud - June 2010
Recent Successes
Asghar Ali and Others v Handley Aeriels – Burnley County
Court
When the Driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was
involved in a rear end shunt with a Mazda at a roundabout in
Blackburn he knew something wasn’t quite right. The car had stopped
for no reason so he immediately took a photo of the damage to the
car in front.
The driver was in his 20’s, at least 6 feet
tall and slim. However, when the medical report was received it
indicated the Claimant was in his 40’s, short and visibly
overweight. He had aged 20 years, shrunk in height and piled on the
pounds all in the period of a few months! Further, the photo taken
at the scene had caught the driver from the waist down proving him
to be very slim. In addition to 3 claims for personal injury,
vehicle damage and storage and recovery charges there was a
significant claim for hire charges.
The extent of the deception was significant
and thus, in addition to defending the claim in its entirety, a
counterclaim was made for exemplary damages as a punitive measure
against the Claimant.
When the matter reached the final hearing at
the Burnley County Court, Judge Harrison, in a Judgment that sent a
significant message to those involved fraud in the Northwest,
said:-
“the 1st Claimant has been
guilty of reprehensible conduct in attempting to deceive the
Defendant and the Court as to the circumstances of the relevant
road traffic accident with the intention of securing for himself an
unjustified profit.”
The claim was struck out and exemplary damages
of £2500 awarded to the Defendant plus costs.
Salim v A Freight Operator – “Fishing
expedition” leads to £60,000 saving.
The accident circumstances were familiar. An
unknown vehicle veers in front of the Claimant’s vehicle causing
him to brake sharply. An inevitable collision then occurs with a
following freight lorry. A substantial claim for financial losses
was then made.
Data analysis revealed a number of previous
accidents including another very similar one. Surely when the
Claimant was asked about his previous accidents he would confirm
the existence of this accident? However, in response to a request
for information the Defendant was met with the inevitable argument
that it constituted a fishing expedition. Instead of providing this
simple information proceedings were issued.
An application to the Court was again opposed
but unfortunately for the Claimant the Court disagreed. Eventually,
after numerous unsuccessful attempts to avoid answering the
questions, the Claimant replied. Unfortunately however he forgot to
mention the similar looking accident, leading to the case being
struck out.
A saving of over £60,000 was achieved
illustrating the tiresome nature of most Claimant’s attempts at
avoiding a reply to questions they should know the answer to!
Khan & Riaz v WS Atkins, Keighley
County Court
This case arose out of a minor accident in a
car park. It was admitted that the Defendant had reversed in to the
Claimants’ vehicle. However it was denied that either of the
Claimants were in the vehicle at the time of the collision.
The claimants' case lacked credibility given
they alleged that the force of the collision stunned them and that
the second claimant had to drag the barely conscious first claimant
out of the vehicle. The insured's wife stated that she had
got out of her car within 5 seconds of the collision and had seen
none of this!
The judge on the day preferred the Insured
Driver's and his wife's evidence and stated the claimants had
failed to prove their case.
Public Liability Fraud - The age
old question.
The credibility of a claimant is a key
consideration when balancing the risks of running a matter to trial
on the basis of factual causation or suspected fraud alone.
And, whilst nobody would necessarily want to admit it, it perhaps
demonstrates a degree of prejudice in the minds of defendants that
one significant factor in assessing credibility is the age of the
claimant. Cynical, fraudulent dishonesty simply does not sit
well with our preconception of the very young or very
old.
Saul Burton in Weightmans Birmingham Local
Government Fraud Team has recently successfully defended two
suspected fraudulent claims against local councils, each being at
the opposite end of the age scale.
In the matter of X v A Local
Authority a schoolgirl, aged 11 at the time of
accident and 14 at trial, claimed to have suffered both physical
and psychological injuries following an accident at school.
The Claimant’s case was that as she was about to sit to use a
toilet, the cistern spontaneously fell from the wall, and hit her
on the back. The claimant’s medical report was suspicious by
the disproportionate severity of the symptoms and had a clear
flavour of exaggeration.
All indications were that the accident
occurred as she has been climbing on the cistern, and it had
collapsed under her weight. This was of course denied
throughout by the Claimant.
At trial, the Claimant’s evidence was
consistent with her pleaded case, but the Judge agreed that
cisterns do not, ordinarily, spontaneously fall from walls, and
some additional force must have been required to dislodge it.
As the Claimant was alone in the cubicle at the time of the
accident, that force could only have come from her. The
Claimant’s claim was dismissed with costs.
In the matter of Y v A Local
Authority an 84 year old Claimant claimed to have
suffered an ankle injury as a result of tripping on uneven slabs in
her council owned back yard. Hospital records stated the
injury was suffered as a result of dropping a glass jar onto her
foot. Breach of duty for the uneven slabs was admitted early
in the claim by the Defendant’s insurers, and so the claim was
defended on a suspected fraud basis alone.
The entirety of the Claimant’s pleadings, Part
18 Replies and witness evidence were inconsistent, yet all endorsed
with statements of truth.
Despite concerns that the Court would dismiss
the inconsistencies as being due to the Claimant’s age, confusion
and failing memory, the decision was taken to proceed to
trial.
Given the claimant’s age, and the involvement
of her sons, it was suspected that the claimant was being pressured
or coerced by her sons, however at trial, it was clear that she was
a dominant woman and the driving force behind the claim. It
became clear under cross examination that she had a grudge against
the local council, and becoming increasingly belligerent, refused
to answer any further questions and subsequently abandoned her
claim during lunch break!
The case was struck out with costs.