Roberts v Kesson & Anor [2020] EWHC 521 (QB) (20 February 2020)

Roberts v Kesson & Anor [2020] EWHC 521 (QB) (20 February 2020)

The claimant was fundamentally dishonest in advancing a false claim for the pre-accident value of the vehicle (£10,400) in his first witness statement and schedule of loss. The dishonesty went to the root of a substantial part of the claim, satisfying the requirements of Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The Recorder failed to properly address and make findings on fundamental dishonesty, and the only permissible conclusion on the evidence is that the claimant was fundamentally dishonest. The appeal is allowed and judgment is entered for the insurers.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 521 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jason Roberts; First Defendant: Alan Kesson; Second Defendant / Appellant: Tesco Underwriting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Mr Recorder Kelbrick Dated 27 August 2019
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for the insurers (Second Defendant).
Legal Topics
Fundamental Dishonesty, Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Road Traffic Accident, Damages, Impecuniosity, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Personal Injury Fundamental Dishonesty Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Road Traffic Accident Damages Impecuniosity +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Roberts

Claimant

Alan Kesson

First Defendant

Tesco Underwriting Limited

Second Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Mr Recorder Kelbrick Dated 27 August 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was fundamentally dishonest within the meaning of Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder properly addressed the issue of fundamental dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the claim for pre-accident value (£10,400) was advanced dishonestly

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was fundamentally dishonest in advancing a false claim for the pre-accident value of the vehicle (£10,400) in his first witness statement and schedule of loss. The dishonesty went to the root of a substantial part of the claim, satisfying the requirements of Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The Recorder failed to properly address and make findings on fundamental dishonesty, and the only permissible conclusion on the evidence is that the claimant was fundamentally dishonest. The appeal is allowed and judgment is entered for the insurers.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for the insurers (Second Defendant).

Orders

  • Claim dismissed under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 due to fundamental dishonesty.
  • Damages, interest, and costs previously awarded to the claimant set aside.