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 cause prejudice to the claimant. The defendant may still apply under section 57 at trial if appropriate. Expert evidence based on the substance of an excluded report was inadmissible and references to it must be redacted.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 846
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 Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Case Management Conference; Application to Amend Defence and Evidentiary Rulings
Outcome
Application to amend Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty refused; application to admit expert evidence based on excluded report refused; permission granted for other amendments relating to exaggeration/minimisation of symptoms.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Fundamental Dishonesty, Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Expert Evidence Admissibility
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Amendment of Pleadings Fundamental Dishonesty Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Expert Evidence Admissibility

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 3 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 Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Case Management Conference; Application to Amend Defence and Evidentiary Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit amendment to Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty under section 57 CJCA 2015
  2. 2 Whether to admit expert evidence based on excluded report

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 cause prejudice to the claimant. The defendant may still apply under section 57 at trial if appropriate. Expert evidence based on the substance of an excluded report was inadmissible and references to it must be redacted.

Court Disposition

Application to amend Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty refused; application to admit expert evidence based on excluded report refused; permission granted for other amendments relating to exaggeration/minimisation of symptoms.

Orders

  • Refused permission for amendment to plead fundamental dishonesty under section 57 CJCA 2015.
  • Refused permission to admit expert evidence based on excluded report by Professor Sharp.