Alexander has experience of claims involving fraud and fundamental dishonesty for the purposes of both QOWCS and s.57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Alexander has experience drafting Defences and counter-schedules to explicitly plead such points or putting claimants on notice about issues of concern that may give rise to the issue of fundamental dishonesty/fraud arising at an appropriate point. Alexander is conscious of the professional duties that arise in pleading such issues, ensuring that each pleading is properly tailored to the specific factual circumstances of each case, clearly setting out the issues for both the opposing party and the court.
An important part of the litigation process in such claims are conferences with defendant witnesses. These are vital in ensuring that scarce resources are properly directed towards claims where prospects of success justify it. Alexander has experience of and is happy to undertake these conferences and the necessary testing of witnesses to ensure their reliability.
Alexander has significant experience of dealing with allegations of fundamental dishonesty at trial whilst acting for claimants. To know the best way to persuade a judge to make such findings requires, perversely, to know the best way to persuade a judge not to make such findings. Judges require specific consideration not just of the fact that a claimant is wrong on any fundamental issue, but that the error arises from dishonesty of the claimant and not through some other reason. Alexander’s ability to recognise this distinction is a vital skill for successfully dealing with fraud and fundamental dishonesty.
Notable cases include:
- N & N v M & AXA Insurance –secured finding of fundamental dishonesty against a claimant after discontinuance at trial following his evidence. Involved consideration of process for pursuing the issue where multiple claimants discontinue but only one has given evidence.
- S v M Bar – drafting counter schedule of loss and specific disclosure application in occupiers’ claim to reply to excessive care claim, claimant discontinued soon after.
- M v BG Associates Ltd – drafting defence and counter-schedule pleading social media posts inconsistent with claimant’s medical evidence.
- Y v RSA – acting for claimant, occupancy argument defeated but failed on causation.
- T & L v C – acting for 2 claimants, occupancy concerns at trial defeated.
- C v T – acting for defendant, causation and quantum issues at trial from RTA, successful in defeating entirety of loss of earnings claim.
- L V Zurich Insurance – acting for defendant against multiple claimants with causation issues from RTA, successfully restricted all general damages and defeated all claims for physiotherapy.
Harmsworth Scholar, Middle Temple
BPTC “Very Competent”, Kaplan Law School
LLB(Hons) First Class, University Of Durham