Howlett v & Anor

Howlett v & Anor

A trial judge may find a claim to be fundamentally dishonest for the purposes of CPR 44.16(1) and disapply QOCS even if dishonesty was not expressly pleaded or put in those terms in cross-examination, provided the claimant had fair notice from the defence and trial conduct and an opportunity to respond. The District Judge's findings were adequately foreshadowed and explored, so the appeal fails.

Parties
Appellant (1st Claimant): Lorna Howlett; Respondent (2nd Claimant): Justin Howlett; Respondent (1st Defendant): Penelope Davies; Respondent (2nd Defendant): Ageas Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs), Fundamental Dishonesty, Pleadings, Cross Examination, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs) Fundamental Dishonesty Pleadings Cross Examination Costs Orders

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorna Howlett

Appellant (1st Claimant)

Justin Howlett

Respondent (2nd Claimant)

Penelope Davies

Respondent (1st Defendant)

Ageas Insurance Limited

Respondent (2nd Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a finding of 'fundamental dishonesty' can be made for the purposes of CPR 44.16(1) where dishonesty was not expressly pleaded or put in those terms in cross-examination
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge was entitled to find the claim 'fundamentally dishonest' and disapply QOCS

Ratio Decidendi

A trial judge may find a claim to be fundamentally dishonest for the purposes of CPR 44.16(1) and disapply QOCS even if dishonesty was not expressly pleaded or put in those terms in cross-examination, provided the claimant had fair notice from the defence and trial conduct and an opportunity to respond. The District Judge's findings were adequately foreshadowed and explored, so the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs order against the claimants stands