Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) (11 April 2018)

Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) (11 April 2018)

The trial judge was entitled, on the evidence, to find that the Claimant had not been fundamentally dishonest in relation to his care claim or the wider personal injury claim. The mere rejection of the care claim did not mandate a finding of dishonesty, and the judge's approach and analysis were sound. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 812 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Edward Wright; Defendant/appellant: Satellite Information Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court to High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Dishonesty, Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Quantum of Damages, Appeals, Costs
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Fundamental Dishonesty Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Quantum of Damages Appeals 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Wright

Claimant/respondent

Satellite Information Services Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was fundamentally dishonest in relation to his personal injury claim under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in law by not finding fundamental dishonesty after rejecting the care claim

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled, on the evidence, to find that the Claimant had not been fundamentally dishonest in relation to his care claim or the wider personal injury claim. The mere rejection of the care claim did not mandate a finding of dishonesty, and the judge's approach and analysis were sound. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment for the Claimant in the sum of £119,165.02 stands
  • Defendant to pay 75% of the Claimant's costs as previously ordered