The courts have served up further signs that lying on a personal injury claim is not to be treated as the death knell for other heads of loss.
In Senay & Anor v Mulsanne Insurance Company, His Honour Judge Charman said the will of parliament was that fundamental dishonesty provisions should only apply to personal injury.
Despite ruling in Senay that the claimant was lying on his PI claim following a road traffic collision, the damage to his vehicle and loss of use were valid, so they should still attract damages.
The decision is similar in outcome to Reynolds v Chief Constable of Kent Police, reported earlier this month, in which Mr Justice Sheldon said a claim for false imprisonment was separate to the personal injury claim lost through fundamental dishonesty.
The Senay judgment was reported this week but was handed down in May, when the judge noted there was no clear and binding authority on the issue of whether dishonesty in the PI claim meant that the whole claim should be dismissed.
Charman accepted the heads of loss for personal injury, vehicle damages and loss of use were different but arose from the same breach of duty – namely the other driver’s negligence. The judge said section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 stated only that where fundamental dishonesty is found, that part of a claim must be dismissed. But the legislation notably did not provide that other parts of his claim must also be dismissed.
The defendant argued that the value of the lost damages should be deducted from the costs payable. But the judge said the effect of this would be to abrogate the property rights of claimants whose vehicles were damaged in accidents caused by negligent defendants.
He added: ‘Whilst the policy behind section 57 is self-evidently to penalise claimants who bring dishonest personal injury claims, it would be expected that clear words would be used if parliament had intended to deprive claimants of their property rights as well as damages for personal injury.’
The claim for personal injury was dismissed but claims in respect of damage to the vehicle, its recovery and storage and loss of use of it were not dismissed.
