Aviva Insurance Ltd v Kovacic

Aviva Insurance Ltd v Kovacic

The defendant deliberately and repeatedly made false statements about his disability and functional limitations to medical experts, in pleadings, and in his witness statement, all verified by statements of truth, knowing them to be false and intending to interfere with the administration of justice by inflating his damages claim. The surveillance evidence and expert findings incontrovertibly contradicted his assertions. The conduct satisfies the requirements for contempt of court under CPR 32.14 and common law, proved to the criminal standard.

Parties
Claimant: Aviva Insurance Ltd; Defendant: Aleksandar Kovacic
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Judgment on Liability for Contempt; Penalty to Be Determined at Subsequent Hearing
Outcome
Twelve allegations of contempt of court proved to the criminal standard; penalty to be determined at subsequent hearing.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, False Statements, Personal Injury Claims, Damages Exaggeration, Surveillance Evidence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Insurance Law Contempt of Court False Statements Personal Injury Claims Damages Exaggeration Surveillance Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aviva Insurance Ltd

Claimant

Aleksandar Kovacic

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Judgment on Liability for Contempt; Penalty to Be Determined at Subsequent Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant deliberately made false statements to the court and medical experts to exaggerate his disability and inflate his damages claim, amounting to contempt of court under CPR 32.14 and common law.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct interfered with the administration of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant deliberately and repeatedly made false statements about his disability and functional limitations to medical experts, in pleadings, and in his witness statement, all verified by statements of truth, knowing them to be false and intending to interfere with the administration of justice by inflating his damages claim. The surveillance evidence and expert findings incontrovertibly contradicted his assertions. The conduct satisfies the requirements for contempt of court under CPR 32.14 and common law, proved to the criminal standard.

Court Disposition

Twelve allegations of contempt of court proved to the criminal standard; penalty to be determined at subsequent hearing.