Mustard v Flower & Ors [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) (12 April 2021)

Mustard v Flower & Ors [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) (12 April 2021)

Permission to amend the Defence to include a contingent plea of fundamental dishonesty was refused because it served no purpose, had no real prospect of success on current evidence, and would prejudice the claimant. However, amendments allowing the defendant to explore exaggeration or minimisation of symptoms at trial were permitted. Claimant's experts were not permitted to rely on analysis from an excluded expert report in their medical evidence.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 846 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Samantha Mustard; First Defendant: Jamie Flower; Second Defendant: Stephen Flower; Third Defendant: Direct Line Insurance
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Case Management Conference (ccmc) Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Permission to amend Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty refused; permission to amend Defence to plead exaggeration/minimisation of symptoms granted; claimant's application to rely on amended medical reports referencing excluded analysis refused.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Defence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Expert Evidence, Costs
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Amendment of Defence Fundamental Dishonesty Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Expert Evidence Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samantha Mustard

Claimant

Jamie Flower

First Defendant

Stephen Flower

Second Defendant

Direct Line Insurance

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Case Management Conference (ccmc) Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit amendment to Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty under section 57 CJCA 2015
  2. 2 Whether claimant's experts could rely on analysis from excluded report in medical evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the Defence to include a contingent plea of fundamental dishonesty was refused because it served no purpose, had no real prospect of success on current evidence, and would prejudice the claimant. However, amendments allowing the defendant to explore exaggeration or minimisation of symptoms at trial were permitted. Claimant's experts were not permitted to rely on analysis from an excluded expert report in their medical evidence.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty refused; permission to amend Defence to plead exaggeration/minimisation of symptoms granted; claimant's application to rely on amended medical reports referencing excluded analysis refused.

Orders

  • Permission to amend Defence to include contingent plea of fundamental dishonesty refused.
  • Permission to amend Defence to plead exaggeration/minimisation of symptoms granted.