Jenkinson v Robertson (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 791 (QB) (31 March 2022)

Jenkinson v Robertson (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 791 (QB) (31 March 2022)

The appeal succeeded because the claimant was not afforded adequate notice or a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations of fundamental dishonesty, and the trial judge's findings were based on significant errors and omissions. The requirements of procedural fairness under s.57 of the 2015 Act were not met.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 791 (QB)
Parties
Claimant / Appellant: Mr Andrew Jenkinson; Defendant / Respondent: Mr Gary Robertson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside
Legal Topics
Fundamental Dishonesty, Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Procedural Fairness, Burden of Proof, Notice of Allegations
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Fundamental Dishonesty Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Procedural Fairness Burden of Proof Notice of Allegations

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Andrew Jenkinson

Claimant / Appellant

Mr Gary Robertson

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was afforded adequate notice and opportunity to respond to allegations of fundamental dishonesty under s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge applied the correct burden of proof regarding fundamental dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the findings of fundamental dishonesty were supported by the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the claimant was not afforded adequate notice or a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations of fundamental dishonesty, and the trial judge's findings were based on significant errors and omissions. The requirements of procedural fairness under s.57 of the 2015 Act were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside

Orders

  • The finding of fundamental dishonesty is set aside.
  • The dismissal of the claim under s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is overturned.