Michael v I E & D Hurford Ltd (t/a Rainbow) [2021] EWHC 2318 (QB) (17 August 2021)

Michael v I E & D Hurford Ltd (t/a Rainbow) [2021] EWHC 2318 (QB) (17 August 2021)

The trial judge was entitled to find, based on oral evidence and the claimant's confusion and lack of understanding, that the claimant was not fundamentally dishonest. The discrepancies in the claim were explained by misunderstanding and solicitor conduct, not by dishonesty of the claimant. The appeal court should not interfere with these findings of fact.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2318 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Luul Michael; Defendant/appellant: I E & D Hurford Limited T/A Rainbow; Defendant/appellant: The National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Dishonesty, Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Appellate Review, Road Traffic Accident, Credit Hire Claims
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Fundamental Dishonesty Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Appellate Review Road Traffic Accident Credit Hire Claims

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luul Michael

Claimant/respondent

I E & D Hurford Limited T/A Rainbow

Defendant/appellant

The National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was fundamentally dishonest under s.57(1)(b) Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in not dismissing the claim for fundamental dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, based on oral evidence and the claimant's confusion and lack of understanding, that the claimant was not fundamentally dishonest. The discrepancies in the claim were explained by misunderstanding and solicitor conduct, not by dishonesty of the claimant. The appeal court should not interfere with these findings of fact.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Recorder's decision upheld; claim not dismissed under s.57(1)(b) Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015