Scott Tuppen acted in a claim for physical & psychological injury against a defendant who admitted liability in a Road Traffic Collision but disputed that their actions had brought about the injuries claimed. The case was heard in the County Court at Canterbury.

It is a widely held belief among the public that drivers who have experienced a road traffic collision, where the other driver admits fault, are automatically entitled to damages. However, with the continued development of the concept of fundamental dishonesty, insurers have increasingly started to push back aggressively against claims, accepting that whilst their insured driver is liable for the collision, the alleged injuries are either made up, exaggerated, or result from an entirely separate condition or event.

Whilst those ‘not at fault’ in a road traffic collision could at one time be practically assured of succeeding in their claim for personal injury, insurers are now leaving no stone unturned in challenging claims of this type.

In this case, the defendant didn’t allege dishonesty at the outset of the case but accused the lead claimant of making up their injuries during the trial.

The court found that the evidence given by the claimants’ witness was cogent and credible. Whilst not criticising the defendant’s legal team, the court made clear that the defendant’s insurer had failed to produce any evidence which undermined the claimants’ claim.

The increased scrutiny of the details of collisions and claimants’ medical records mean that solicitors acting for claimants should ensure that video evidence of the collision (from public & private CCTV and dashcams) is obtained & preserved early, if possible, and where claimants have historical health conditions, that they are encouraged to disclose these conditions early.

Claimants should understand that the existence of a health condition does not bar a claim. Existing health conditions are capable of being exacerbated. Those who have existing health issues have the same access to justice as others.

Scott was instructed by Carpenters Limited. Jake Smith said Scott achieved “an amazing result”, and the developing concept of fundamental dishonesty continues to pose new challenges for litigators and advocates.