Case Alerts

Before His Honour Judge Hellman   |   Thomas Moore Building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London – 03/05/2019

Plexus Law represented UKI Insurance Limited in connection with a claim arising out of a road traffic accident that occurred on 18/10/2012 when the Claimant, then aged 17, riding his motorcycle in Kent, was hit by the First Defendant’s motor vehicle. The claim against Insurers was brought by the Claimant under Regulation 3 of the European Community Rights Against Insurer Regulations 2002.

Liability was admitted in full, with damages to be paid by the Second Defendant.

The matter came to Trial before His Honour Judge Hellman who gave findings in relation to:

1. The injuries suffered by the Claimant
2. How they affected him, and
3. What financial and non-financial loss had been caused to the Claimant.

Written and oral evidence was heard from the Claimant and three members of his immediate family.

Expert written reports of Mr J O’Dowd, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Mr Dinshaw-Master, Consultant Psychiatrist, were considered on behalf of the Claimant.

Oral expert evidence was heard from Mr Colin Natali (Spinal Consultant) and Dr Stuart Turner (Consultant Psychiatrist), on behalf of the Second Defendants.

The Claimant had served Witness Summonses 5 days before Trial on his own experts, as he was representing himself in person. The Claimant had from 2012 to 2018 been represented by New Law Solicitors in Cardiff.

The experts made oral application to the Judge at commencement of the Trial that they were unable to offer the Court up to date evidence about his medical condition, as they had not seen Mr Bellett for several years and satisfactory arrangements were not in place to pay their fees.

The Claimant’s Pain Management Consultant, Dr C Jenner, made a written Application to the Court following service of the Witness Summons, that he did not intend to appear, that he did not take instructions from Litigants in Person, no arrangements had been made for payment of his fees, and he had not received up to date instructions in order to comply with Case Management Directions and had not completed Joint Statements nor watched any surveillance evidence.

In a ruling on day 2, the Judge allowed the reports of the experts, Mr O’Dowd and Mr Dinshaw-Master, to be accepted as written evidence into the case, together with their previous Joint Statements.  He ruled that in deciding what weight to give to those opinions, he would remain mindful that the Second Defendants had not been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine their unagreed opinions and that Dr Dinshaw-Master had not seen nor commented on the 2017/18 surveillance evidence.

In relation to the Claimant’s evidence from Dr Chris Jenner, Pain Management Consultant, the Judge dismissed his evidence from the case as a result of his application. As a result, the Defendant did not call their own Pain Management Consultant, Dr Peter Evans to give evidence.

The case was pursued aggressively by the Claimant and his former solicitors and following the change in the discount rate in March 2017, had been pleaded in excess of £3,350,000.00 on the premise he was permanently unfit to ever return to any employment and required background care for life.

The Claimant sustained the following injuries:

• Fracture to the thoracic spine, requiring open reduction and internal fixation
• Fractures to the chest wall
• Fractures of the ribs
• Soft tissue injuries to the neck, shoulders, low back and hips with radiation into his left leg

The Claimant had no pre-accident symptoms of neck, thoracic or back pain.

The Spinal Consultants, in their Joint Statement, having reviewed medical records, which clearly documented Mr Bellett reporting a good recovery with regard to his symptoms and return to normal activities being attempted at around 6 months,  had agreed that would be an appropriate period of pain and disability in relation to the spinal injury sustained.

The Claimant attempted to return to work as an Apprentice Motor Mechanic in April 2013, but reported deterioration by August 2013 and ceased all further employment.

By September 2013 some increased lower thoracic back pain and muscle stiffness, worse in the morning, and although x-rays showed satisfactory placement of the metal screws and rods supporting the spine with no post-operative changes to the x-rays, the Claimant underwent further surgery to remove the metal supports on 07/01/14.  Medical records showed that by March 2014, the Claimant had tolerated surgery well.

The Claimant was involved in a subsequent road traffic accident on 03/12/14, represented by Carpenters Solicitors that he had failed to disclose to medical experts in subsequent examinations.  The Claimant had attended for a medical examination in relation to the later accident and a medical report for a claim under the MOJ Portal had been obtained.

The Claimant attended the examination in respect of the second accident on 26/01/15 where he reported suffering from neck pain, stiffness and stiffness in the thoracic lumbar spine and psychological symptoms from the second accident, as well as contusion to the rib cage.

Dr Saeed, The GP expert, gave an opinion that the Claimant should recover within 9 months from the soft tissue injuries and 4 months from the psychiatric symptoms.

The Claimant had reported to Dr Saeed in January 2015 that he had been involved in an RTA two years previously, (the index accident) as a result of which, he had sustained injuries to his lower back and that he continued to suffer from episodes of pain in his back and rib cage, but denied having any previous significant related symptoms.

The Claimant maintained his case that the deterioration that took place from August 2013 continuing to date, was all directly related to the index accident and that he had gone on to develop a chronic pain syndrome and significant psychiatric sequela with widespread paravertebral thoracic pain and worsening of the left leg weakness, significantly reduced mobility and breathing difficulties together with pain from walking in his hips and lower back, shooting pains into his feet and heels with loss of sensation, erectile dysfunction, limited shoulder movements, memory loss and alleged head/brain injury symptoms.

The Orthopaedic experts agreed that any increase in symptoms after the 6 month period initial recovery could not be due to physical injuries but were due to the development of either a form of chronic pain syndrome or deliberate misrepresentation.

Mr O’Dowd believed there was evidence of a significant head injury, but the Second Defendant had successfully resisted two previous Applications from the then represented Claimant to call neurological evidence due to lack of objective evidence of any head injury.

The Orthopaedic experts had deferred to experts in pain and or psychiatry as to the interplay of any alleged chronic pain and the accident.

The Judge found that significant elements of area of injury complained of by the Claimant, were not supported by any medical evidence as having been caused by the index accident, such as the erectile dysfunction and alleged brain injury.

Psychiatric experts had prepared a previous Joint Statement in which they agreed the index accident had caused the Claimant to develop PTSD and depression and they agreed that there was no previous history of psychiatric injury or vulnerability prior to the accident. It was the Claimant’s case that significant psychiatric symptoms continued.

The Claimant described frequent nightmares of the incident/flashbacks and anxiety when travelling in a car, anger against the driver of the car and feeling very low. He felt his symptoms had deteriorated and his family supported his evidence on that point.

He had received treatment from a Clinical Psychologist from February to September 2013, but had failed to attend numerous sessions due to several other demands on his time.

By April 2013, clinical records showed that the Claimant was not suffering nightmares, was sleeping 8 hours a night and was not experiencing anger or irritability and was not experiencing a heightened threat response. The Claimant, in addition, passed his motor vehicle driving test in May 2013.

The Judge accepted Dr Turner’s evidence, that he could not opine whether the pain was causing Mr Bellett to experience emotional problems or that emotional problems were causing Mr Bellett to experience pain, but in his opinion the Claimant had not suffered any lasting emotional damage.

Dr Turner gave evidence that it was possible that the Claimant had become obsessed with this claim, rather than suffering from any ongoing psychiatric condition. Based on the reports of the medical experts, the independent report of Dr Saeed, clinical comments in medical records that documented objective recovery and the force of Dr Turners evidence. The Judge concluded that the Claimant was likely to have recovered from any PTSD by 6 months post accident and that once remitted PTSD would not return but the Claimant would have been more susceptible to subsequent PTSD from another event.

The Second Defendants relied on various periods of both static and mobile surveillance evidence from 2015 to 2018, all of which, in summary, showed an unemployed gentleman appearing to go about his general business, going for frequent drives in his car, turning his head without restriction to the left and right, walking with a normal gait, visiting shops and garages and for a period of 18 days of static camera surveillance, having not been seen entering or leaving his home address. The Judge held that it was likely, despite the Claimant’s protestations, that he had used an interim payment made on 03/05/18 to travel on holiday rather than for pain management treatment, which he had so desperately sought in 2018. The video surveillance was held to show the Claimant often returning to his home address in the small hours of the morning.

He had obstructed appointments with the Defendant’s Care and Pain Management experts after receipt of a £40,000 interim payment granted in May 2018 on his Application to fund urgently needed pain management treatment recommended by his Pain expert, Dr Jenner in December 2017. The Claimant did not seek the pain management treatment for which he had received an interim payment in 2018.

In addition, the Claimant alleged that he sustained repeated dislocations of his left hip and that he has undergone a stroke in the material accident. He had for 2 years during the litigation failed to register with any GP or sought any medication or treatment on the NHS, despite his alleged level of disability.

The Judge accepted that the Claimant’s pain and disability might be caused by a chronic pain syndrome, but as he had heard no expert evidence on pain management, he could only deal with pain as a subjective experience and that any evidence from pain management opinions would have been heavily dependent on the Claimant’s reporting of his pain and what those doctors had made of his complaints.

Credibility was attacked in relation to:

1. Surveillance evidence, suggestive of higher levels of mobility;
2. Failure to use interim payment to pay for pain management treatment;
3. Obstruction of appointments and declining domiciliary visits by the Defendant’s Care and Pain Management experts;
4. The reasonable inference that the Claimant was most probably on holiday for 16 days between 24^th May and 8^th June 2018 and
5. His medical condition recorded by Dr Saeed in January 2015, which was not consistent with the evidence of his medical condition at that time, being given to experts in the material case.

The Court found that the Claimant did not have a convincing explanation for the discrepancy, having initially denied being examined by Dr Saeed for the purposes of a second claim at all.

The Judge found that he was not satisfied that the Claimant had experienced all of the symptoms, which he claimed and in his Judgment, reiterated that it is for the Claimant to prove the injury and loss which he has suffered.  He did not accept the Claimant’s evidence on injury and loss where it had not been agreed or it was not supported by independent witness evidence or documentation.

The Claimant was awarded General Damages, including the 10% uplift, which the Court of Appeal directed in the Simmons v Castle 2013 1 WLR1239, on the basis that his symptoms had largely resolved by April 2013 and almost entirely resolved by January 2015. The Judge did not find the Claimant continued to experience significant accident related symptoms.

He considered whether the Claimant suffered from pain, but at a lower level than that which he claimed, but found that this was not the case put forward by the Claimant and was not a possibility which he was satisfied was established on the balance of probabilities by the evidence he had heard.

General Damages were awarded for the most significant spinal injury and PTSD of: £35,000.

Damages for financial loss were restricted to Loss of Earnings from 19/10/12 until 08/04/13 of: £3,675.

Gratuitous Care to 04/04/13:£2,838.

Miscellaneous expenses, damaged motorcycle and travel: £1,697.

Total Special Damages: £8,210

Total: £43,210.00

The Claimant was not entitled to damages for Future Loss. The Defendant will pursue a significant costs liability from the Claimant resulting from offers having been made in 2014 which the Claimant failed to beat.

 

If you would like to know more about this matter, please speak to your contact at Plexus:

Jo Pizzala, Partner

T: 0207 618 0780    |   M: 07957 726 576  |   E: joanne.pizzala@plexuslaw.co.uk

Whilst we take care to ensure that the material in this Case Alert is correct, it is made available for information only, and no representation is given as to its quality, accuracy, fitness for purpose, or usefulness. In particular, the contents of this Case Alert do not give specific legal advice, should not be relied on as doing so, are not a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. Plexus Law accepts no responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on information or materials published in this Case Alert.

Play Quietly?

On 17 April 2019 the Court of Appeal delivered its Judgment in the controversial case of Christopher Goldscheider v Royal Opera House Covent Garden. This was an appeal brought by the Royal Opera House against the decision in favour of Christopher Goldscheider before the High Court by way of the Judgment of 28 March 2018 finding that the Opera House was in breach of duty and that those breaches had caused the Claimants injury.

The case concerned the implementation of the control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 and their Application to the performance of live music.

Those Regulations were enacted in the context of preventing noise induced hearing loss in those engaged in paid employment in a noisy working environment.

Within the much debated  judgment of The Honourable Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, it was held that an opera house should be treated no differently to a factory and that the Royal Opera House had simply not done enough to protect Christopher Goldscheider from the effects of noise, despite quite wide ranging, and expensive, efforts to comply with the regulations. Christopher Goldscheider in fact did not allege that he had suffered from noise induced hearing loss, a condition quite prevalent among those engaged in the performance of orchestral music. Christopher Goldscheider suffered a controversial, and still not fully understood, medical condition called acoustic shock. This caused Christopher Goldscheider to suffer from hypersensitive hearing and tinnitus, an intrusive ringing in the ears.

The cause of that condition was also not without controversy in that the sound levels said to be responsible for triggering the reaction were not, in isolation, levels that would be considered excessively noisy.  It was feared that the ramifications of the judgment would be far reaching, particularly within the context of the performance of live music. Indeed, one particular concern held by the Opera House, and the performance industry generally, was that the effect of the judgment would bring about the compulsory wearing of hearing protection by musicians at all times during the performance of most orchestral, and theatrical, productions.

Those representing the wider musical performance sector were able to make submissions by way of an intervention during the Court of Appeals Hearing in March of this year and endeavoured to impress upon the Court the said wider ramifications of the decision. To their relief, the Court of Appeal has indicated that the judgment should not be interpreted as meaning that professional musicians should wear personal protective equipment at all times but only, with the benefit of specific guidance and education, at those times where risk of injury exists.

Unfortunately, the Judgment perhaps raises more questions than are answered. The fact is that Christopher Goldscheider had available to him two different types of hearing protection during the rehearsal of the performance in question and was not wearing hearing protection at the point that he became unwell and suffered the injury to his hearing. In addition, the Royal Opera House had a healthy budget, and access to market leading advice, that allowed them to take steps, before and after the event, to try and comply with the regulations. But what chance has a smaller organisation where one, as is more common in the wider sector, but has a very limited budget?  How many venues can remove rows of seating to make the orchestra’s performance area larger or purchase noise screens and custom moulded ear pieces for the performing artist?

Within this context the ramifications for the public sector are not difficult to see. When a well-meaning local authority or educational establishment puts on the performance of a concert including music, and/or fireworks, or any other production which involves the use of sound as a means of entertainment it must give very careful consideration to the safety of those both performing the activity and those engaged in facilitating it such as stewards, caterers, stage hands, bar staff etc. There are many performance venues in public hands and many public sector and academic organisations that take great pride in putting on performances for the benefit of the wider public. Indeed, it is interesting that the Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that the statutory defence of carrying out a “desirable activity” could not be relied upon by the Opera House in relation to the claim brought by Christopher Goldscheider.

Certainly the wearing of hearing protection is less invasive for those not directly involved in performance. It is likely that most public sector organisations would have hearing protection regimes in place during loud performances of any description for their staff and contract staff engaged in facilitating production. But if we rewind, however, to the issues raised above, we are not dealing here with the long term exposure to loud noise causing hearing loss but a momentary peak of sound to the unprotected ear. Where then does that leave the employer facing the claim from the member of staff who states ‘I only removed my headphones to hear what the man was saying when asking were the toilets were’.

As ever, the starting point in addressing any developing risk facing our local authority and similar clients, is to access the best expert advice, both legal and scientific in protecting themselves from breach of the legislation in the first place and in defending the claims that must surely follow this decision.

If you would like to know more about this matter, please speak to your contacts at Plexus Law:

Dominic Collingwood, Associate

T: 0113 468 1752    |   M: 07785 617 972 |   E: dominic.collingwood@plexuslaw.co.uk

Whilst we take care to ensure that the material in this Case Alert is correct, it is made available for information only, and no representation is given as to its quality, accuracy, fitness for purpose, or usefulness. In particular, the contents of this Case Alert do not give specific legal advice, should not be relied on as doing so, are not a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. Plexus Law accepts no responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on information or materials published in this Case Alert.

 

 

 

Introduction

The Financial Ombudsman (“FOS”) was set up in 2000 by Parliament as an independent public body to resolve complaints between financial businesses and their customers.

Their stated aims are to “resolve individual disputes between consumers and business – fairly, reasonably, quickly and informally”.

An estimated two million people contacted the FOS with problems last year.

Up until 1 April 2019 the FOS compensation limit was £150,000.

From 1 April 2019 that limit significantly increased to £350,000 for complaints about acts or omissions taking place after 1 April 2019.

For complaints about acts or omissions taking place prior to 1 April 2019, but referred after that date  the limit also increases to £160,000.

Both limits will rise in line with the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) each year, from April 2020.

In addition the qualifying criteria for companies to access to the FOS’ services as an ‘eligible complainant’, have changed to widen the reach to the following:

Small and Medium Enterprises with an annual turnover of less than £6.5 million (previously £2 million); and

Either:

Fewer than 50 employees (previously the limit was 10);

OR

A balance sheet under £5 million.

How can Plexus  Help?

The increase in scope will undoubtedly lead to delays and further backlogs.  Evidence given to the Treasury select committee in January 2019 suggested there were around 30,000 complaints waiting for allocation and a backlog of 8,000 claims with investigation complete but waiting for a decision to be made.

The Property Risks & Coverage (PRC) and Professional Indemnity & Financial Risks (Profin) teams at Plexus are well versed in advising insurers on disputes referred to the FOS and handling FOS referrals.

In addition we have a trained, Accredited Mediator within the team who can provide an impartial mediation service to Insurers and their policyholders as an alternative solution to waiting for a decision from the FOS.

If you would like to know more about this matter, please speak to your contacts at Plexus Law:

Louise Wright, Partner (PRC)

T: 0113 222 9063    |   M: 07867 459 491  |   E: louise.wright@plexuslaw.co.uk

Victoria Jordan, Partner (PRC)

T: 0207 469 6252    |   M: 07590 486 147  |   E: victoria.jordan@plexuslaw.co.uk

Gordon Walker, Partner (Profin)

T: 0113 2238 331  |   M: 07557 036 901  |   E: gordon.walker@plexuslaw.co.uk

 

Whilst we take care to ensure that the material in this Briefing Note is correct, it is made available for information only, and no representation is given as to its quality, accuracy, fitness for purpose, or usefulness. In particular, the contents of this Briefing Note do not give specific legal advice, should not be relied on as doing so, are not a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. Plexus Law accepts no responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on information or materials published in this Briefing Note.

 

The Consultation on extending the applicability of fixed recoverable costs to most civil cases with a value of up to £100,000 has now commenced, due to run until 6^th June 2019.

The Ministry of Justice will now consult on the Jackson Supplemental Report on Fixed Costs proposals, with all types of civil cases excluding clinical negligence and claims in the business and property Courts to be included. The proposals arise out of recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson almost two years ago now.

The proposals are however more limited in scope than those recommended by Lord Justice Jackson, not only with the proposed limit scaled back from £250,000 to £100,000 but the proposed introduction of a new ‘intermediate track’ being dropped too. The proposals do however suggest an extension of the range of the current Fast Track up to £100,000 to tie in with the extension of the fixed recoverable costs regime.

The Government will also look to implement fixed costs for noise induced hearing loss claims up to a value of £25,000, as was recommended by the Civil Justice Council in 2017, such cases currently being entirely excluded from the fixed costs regime irrespective of value.

The Ministry of Justice also proposes an uplift of 35% on the fixed costs for the purposes of Part 36 where an offer to settle is made by one side but not beaten by the other at Trial. The consultation further asks whether there should be an uplift in costs where one party has acted unreasonably. A ‘London weighting’ of 12.5% uplift, for parties living in the capital or instructing London lawyers, is included in the proposals.

It is also proposed that costs budgeting come into force for judicial reviews where the costs of a party are likely to exceed £100,000.

Justice Secretary David Gauke is supportive of the proposals and has stated ‘One of the major concerns about embarking on litigation is the fear of adverse costs: the requirement by a losing party to pay the other side’s costs… It is important that these costs are proportionate to the sums in issue. In order to ensure that ordinary people can engage in civil litigation without fear of incurring ruinous costs, where possible we must control legal costs in advance. This provides certainty and transparency for all involved.’

The results of the consultation are yet to be seen but it seems clear that the Government is determined to implement Jackson’s recommendations, albeit initially in a less radical way than he proposed in 2017. One thing is certain, change is coming and Plexus will continue to be at the forefront of adopting to the changing civil litigation market and keeping our Clients up to date and advised on how to continue to protect their best interests in these changing times.

If you would like to know more about this matter, please speak to your contact at Plexus Law:

Tim Roberts, Commercial Director

T: 0207 398 9809    |   M: 07831 686 264 |   E: tim.roberts@plexuslaw.co.uk

Peninsular House  |  30-36 Monument Street  |  London  |   EC3R 8NB

Whilst we take care to ensure that the material in this Legal Alert is correct, it is made available for information only, and no representation is given as to its quality, accuracy, fitness for purpose, or usefulness. In particular, the contents of this Legal Alert do not give specific legal advice, should not be relied on as doing so, are not a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. Plexus Law accepts no responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on information or materials published in this Legal Alert.

On 19 March 2019 the Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, advised the London Stock Exchange of the commencement of his long awaited review of the personal injury Discount Rate as required by the Civil Liability Act 2018.

Under the terms of the Act, the review can last a maximum of 140 days which means that this long awaited decision will be announced by 5 August 2019 at the latest.

The Government Actuary’s Department has until 7 April 2019 to commence its consultation and it must report to the Lord Chancellor by 26 June 2019.

The current Discount Rate is -0.75% and represented a significant departure from the historical rate of 2.5% which has resulted in insurers having to make disproportionately high awards.

Plexus have provided evidence to the Ministry of Justice in advance of the Lord Chancellor’s review and support the position of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL), namely that the current Discount Rate of -0.75% is unduly harsh on the NHS, public purse, motorists generally and insurers.

Low risk Claimant investors will still achieve capital growth on their compensation sums by instructing sophisticated Wealth Managers and Independent Financial Advisors to manage a wide spectrum of portfolio investments. These investment strategies need to be taken into account by the Lord Chancellor and Government Actuary’s Department when setting the Discount Rate.

FOIL hopes that the outcome of the Discount Rate review delivers a fair and just outcome for all parties without any over or under compensation.

The Lord Chancellor’s decision will not impact on Scottish claim as a separate review is being made by the Scottish Government.

If you would like to know more about this matter, please speak to your contact at Plexus Law:

Anthony Baker, Partner  & Vice President of FOIL

T: 0113 4681 702   |   M: 07811 545 321   |   E: anthony.baker@plexuslaw.co.uk

Joseph’s Well  |  Hanover Walk   |  Leeds  |   LS3 1AB

Whilst we take care to ensure that the material in this Legal Alert is correct, it is made available for information only, and no representation is given as to its quality, accuracy, fitness for purpose, or usefulness. In particular, the contents of this Legal Alert do not give specific legal advice, should not be relied on as doing so, are not a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. Plexus Law accepts no responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on information or materials published in this Legal Alert.

A fraudster was this week sent to prison for 4 months after a judge jailed him for attempting to defraud Co-op Insurance out of thousands of pounds.

Paul Christopher Johnson was sentenced at the High Court after being found guilty of contempt.

In CIS General Insurance Limited v Mr Paul Christopher Johnson, Her Honour Mrs Justice Cutts, deemed the offences so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence could be justified. Mr Johnson had been found guilty of the offences at an earlier hearing.

Mr Johnson had previously brought a claim for personal injury and associated losses against Co-op Insurance and its insured following an accident on 1^st September 2012. The claim included the sum of £85,000.00 for alleged lost earnings purportedly incurred as a result of Mr Johnson being unable to complete a software development contract by reason of the accident and his injuries.

Plexus Law, assisted by Mr Timothy Sharpe of Temple Garden Chambers, obtained an order striking out Mr Johnson’s claim on the basis of s57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, it being found that the claim for lost earnings was fundamentally dishonest and entirely fabricated.

Following the strike out Plexus Law were subsequently instructed to bring proceedings on behalf of the Co-op Insurance for contempt of court on the basis of Mr Johnson making false statements in documents verified by a statement of truth.

It was alleged that Mr Johnson had interfered with the due administration of justice in that he verified statements of truth on court documents that were:

1. untrue;
2. untrue in such a way that the untruth interfered with the course of justice in a material respect; and
3. made in his full knowledge that they were untrue.

In the original judgment and upon finding the contempt proved to the criminal standard, Her Honour Judge Walden-Smith described Mr Johnson’s conduct as a serious contempt compounded by the fact that he told further untruths in a bid to cover up his attempted deceit.

Passing sentence, Mrs Justice Cutts described Mr Johnson as ‘greedy’ and explained that the court took a very serious view of his behaviour which sought to undermine the due administration of justice.

Ian Kershaw, Head of Claims at Co-op Insurance said:

“Fraudulent claims have an impact on all motorists who see their premiums rise as a result of them.

It simply isn’t fair for honest law-abiding motorists to be impacted in this way and we hope that the action we’ve taken acts as a deterrent to other potential fraudsters

Fraudulent claims are not a victimless crime and as a member-owned insurer we are keen to ensure that we are protecting the interests of our members and customers by taking proactive action against them.”

If you would like to know more about this Case Alert please contact:

Kevin Perkins, Partner

T: 01422 394 251  |   M: 07890 590 187   |   E: kevin.perkins@plexuslaw.co.uk

Dean Clough  |  G1 G Mill   |  Halifax   |   HX3 5AX

Whilst we take care to ensure that the material in this Case Alert is correct, it is made available for information only, and no representation is given as to its quality, accuracy, fitness for purpose, or usefulness. In particular, the contents of this Case Alert do not give specific legal advice, should not be relied on as doing so, are not a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. Plexus Law accepts no responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on information or materials published in this Case Alert.