"Fundamental Dishonesty" - How exaggerating your claim will cost you EVERYTHING.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ค. 2024
- When MUST the courts deny you justice? When you lie, that's when.
Link to case: www.civillitigationbrief.com/...
H/T Gordon Exall
Check out his blog: www.civillitigationbrief.com/...
#artoflaw #law #compensation #legislation
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
Founded by Alan Robertshaw and @Blackbeltbarrister
th-cam.com/users/blackbeltbarriste...
![[ไฮไลต์] แบดมินตันชาย SHI Yu Qi (จีน) vs วิว กุลวุฒิ (ไทย) รอบ 8 คน | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f7z7taforOM/mqdefault.jpg)
Brilliant channel. Useful, entertaining and even provides picturesque locations!
No one with any sense post their lives online. However, the vast majority of people do indeed appear to lack sense.
I think this is a good reason for lawyers to be very, very careful about what they allow their clients to claim.
Is the counsel for the ginger client cognizant of this law?
Fantastic choice of scenery.
Your content is brilliant. Not too long, but sufficiently in-depth. No AI voice. When your content is this good you only need to do the like and subscribe at the end. Many thanks for sharing.
Why is this?
Perjury is a crime. No one can be seen to benefit from committing a crime. Especially, benefitting from a crime cannot be advocated by a court of law.
{:o:O:}
Very interesting. Thank you. Great scenery
@3:00 very Bullseye! Did the court at least award his bus fare home?
No, but he now has a mobility speedboat.
Your work is brilliant Al, thank you sir
Have been reading cases regarding this. Most seem to be regarding personal injury claims however i am in a position to have to use this in another type of civil claim in amongst all the other contraventions. It seems your content is always pertinent to my situation which is great for me. All i can offer in return is many thanks.
The claimants legal team surely must have had knowledge of the claimants injuries.
Are the legal team taken to task ?
If not why not.
Honesty always pays.
Or is it the duty of the defendant to prove the claimant is exaggerating?
Super, smashing, great! Good morning to you. So, there's Dishonesty and then there's Fundamental Dishonesty. But my naivety is being slowly stripped away from me.🥺. I do like the video though. Thank you. 😊.
#AlwaysUseful #AlwaysInteresting #AlwaysAccurate
- Like
- Subscribe
- Share
- Comment
How will law apply where Post Office have had the privilege of inventing it and relying on their interpretation of their own inventions - What affordable route is available for the victims of that ? (speaking as victim number 1 of Horizon scandal way before it got a name or the support of MPs. Is there a remedy against negligent cabinet assisting Post Office and issuing legal threat to victim seeking recognition of industrial scale evidence fabrication and data protection breach via a monopoly postal system ?
Excellent explanation as always. The motorcyclist should claim against the insurance company for the gunshot wound when he shot himself in the foot by undermining his own case with his own social media posts?
Incidentally, I believe base jumping is uninsurable so if he's sustained the same injuries from that activity he's have got nothing anyway.
The law in this area is an absolute nightmare, we were hit at 40 mph from the rear. Pushing us into 4 more queuing cars, liability accepted.
I am a full time carer and was repairing/adapting my house and doing wet room which would have saved me about £10,000. But the civil liabilities act. Caps any compensation to an about £1000 for a 1 year back injury and £4000 for a 2 year back injury..
The cap on exceptional circumstances is just 20% extra.
My job ( unpaid ) is full time carer is not covered , my essential uplift of my house is not covered, my hobbies not covered. ( wife has MS )
However… the silly woman , possibly reading her phone , could be compensated because her injuries are to the face, knee, not “whiplash” the system is unjust to real victims.
I cannot get fair compensation unless my injuries exceed 2 years … I need the wet room for my wife now. I can’t do the work I would have done. I can’t even load the dishwasher without pain.
Every story I hear of UK law seems to involve injustice...
@@jamiem4121 I suspect TNT Law is exaggerating. Yes, a limited single whiplash injury of limited duration is capped. But if it's as serious as he infers, and unable to carry out any "works", thats not just whiplash of a short self limiting duration. It might put back the building for a short whilse, during the "acute" phase, but a bit of back pain resolving shouldnt prevent it. And if he has evidence that the work had already started, "Doing..." a wet room, how long does that take, a couple of weeks? Then he should be able to claim for some help to finish it, if the works are going to be unreasonably delayed by several months.
Perhaps its "I was .planning" to have a wetroom, but sadly can't do the backbreaking labour there's no evidence of, with no proof of planning, ordering materials, or drawings....and when I just asked for £50k for what I "alleged I was going to do", they said no, is usually closer to the truth......
And the "Silly woman" can't claim for injuries either, as she caused them, she'd be suing herself.
@@jujuUK68 I’m almost a year on from the crash. My headrest was bent back 80 degrees. I still can’t do lower cupboards, load the dishwasher without lower back pain , my neck is restricted needing a collar at the end of the day and pain killers.
The point is my building works were needed before the crash, and even more so now. They can’t wait 2 years for me to recover.
Yes I can function and do the shopping, but I can’t do what I would have done, hire a tool and dig up the bathroom floor, rewire sockets ….. because it hurts after 10 min.
This would be day to day life for me.. all messed up .
I think it depends if the judge actually looks at the evidence and doesn't say he only got the packet that morning and hasn't had a chance to look through it.
Thanks Al
PS I find many of your posts exceedingly interesting and often useful 🎉❤ sorry if I go into capital letters not very good index finger typist 😢
Is this not down to incompetence/ greed/ negligence of the legal representative? When i brought a valid case for medical negligence ( which i won) my solicitor warned me not to exaggerate anything and that any social media accounts i had would be checked. This was 12 years ago.
No, it's down to the liar, not to anybody who may have forgotten to tell them not to lie.
Very interesting
What if a barrister did the things you speak of ?
?
Very interesting! And I agree with this bit of legislation.
Are the courts then making the assumption that everything posted on Facebook is true?
No. But if somebody tells the court "I cannot do X" and tells their Facebook friends "I just did X -- here's a photograph", then at least one of those statements must be false, so the situation definitely needs to be looked into.
Does the test of fundamental dishonesty apply to other types of cases other than injury compensation claims?
My feeling on this (and I know feelings don't count) is this is too harsh. Harsh is fine, but this (if what is said is true about the injuries) is beyond reasonable. Perhaps have the option to cut the award in half or similar? Not all or nothing as nothing is simply going to mean that the tax payer pays for all of it and *that* is also an injustice.
The problem is a video can only get a "flavour" of how the law reads and is applied. In truth, a Court will allow a claimant considerable leeway. Indeed in early judgements on Fundamental Dishonesty, the Court even suggested that some "exaggeration" was quite usual, to be expected and could be dealt with in the usual manner of negotiation/discussion.
You say you think your car was worth £10k, and it was really worth £5k, no one will bat an eyeylid. Engineer provides a report, and the court/claimant/defendant will agree it.
However, say you can't walk more than 50 yards, can't hold shopping (and need taxis's or care/assistance daily) and need a stick or walking frame for the rest of your life. Your claim might then be worth hudnreds of thousands of pounds. If, then having given testimony to medical experts who provided a professional report agreeing, based on that evidence, there is a clear pattern of untruthful behhavior, entirely diffeent to "a bit of exaggeration", thats where the offence is. If you are then seen a year later running a marathon, This is where it really crosses the line into fraud.
However as an insurance claim is a civil matter, to plead fraud, itself a criminal offence, is subject to a much higher buden of proof. So you previously had the exaggerating party, under civil law, previously without any punishmnet for untruth, other than not getting the exaggerated part of the claim paid (hardly going to dissuade anyone) and then the other side put to having to prove in a civil matter, fraud to a criminal standard of proof fraud. So Fundamental dishonesty simply restores balance between the parties, that a clearly obvious, lying party, in civil law, now has possible effective sanction to cap their behaviour.
@@jujuUK68 I thoroughly agree with you about restoring balance. I strongly dislike theft and that is what fraud is - usually writ large. What I'm looking at is the practicality and proportionality of punishment when Fundamental dishonesty is observed and held to be true in someone's case.
I'm arguing for still helping someone who is definitely the injured party (with ongoing long term injury) but making sure they are still punished properly. You can usually do both.
If that's what is happening then I have no problem.
I like his unusual accent, but that aside, he is clear & knowledgeable, an interesting lawyer and that counts for everything.
A Manchester/Lancashire accent is "unusual"?
@@beeble2003 Yes .. and I could listen to it all day.
Lester Divers murder Sheffield firearms offence spin off is an interesting one as the firearm purchase was dated the day after the murder which realised a possession conviction over murder charge, Not sure how or where they recovered the invoices or warranties on the guns in order to apply the sale of goods act should they have been unfit for purpose.
Was this draconian law brought in to stop whiplash claims?
Not really. Nor is it draconian, unless you didn't understand it.
Whiplash claims were dealt with reasonably effecitvely by fixed tarriffs for injury. - Except that mysteriously claimants now get all sorts of arm, elbow, knee and wrist trains from"Feet on pedals" or from "holding the steering wheel" to take their whiplash out of the tarriff system now.
What do you do if a judge lies to you?
What is the piece of legislation called, that nullifies tort claims involving fundamental elements of dishonesty?
Many thanks for posting video on this topic. Very interesting!
S.57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
@@artmedialaw Is this piece of legislation specific to personal injury claims, or can it also be applied to tort claimants in general when they "lie to the judge" as you put it. I'm thinking probably case dismissed and fine for contempt of court!
@@yngve2062 The section is entitled "Personal injury claims: cases of fundamental dishonesty". Two seconds of Googling would have answered your question in, well, two seconds, rather than a week.
you mentioned insurance companies secretly photographing and filming people without their knowledge.
can anything they record be thrown out if they do not obtain autherisation under RIPA? i doubt they are even able to obtain this autherisation.
after all it would have recorded illegally, in a blatant breach of GDPR/data protection
Don't be silly. Footage obtained is of people going about their business in public. There's no law to stop a person in public being captured. You have no expectation to a right of privacy in public. So next time you go rollerblading, skydiving, or a charity marathon. whilst still claiming for "lifelong" injuries, do stop and think.....
Besides, you'll only do what all claimants do when they;'re caught... "Oh... I have good days and bad days... "....
If the evidence gathered demonstrates iniquity then it will probably be allowed. Prevention and detection of crime in GDPR provides a waver for consent, can't remember the article off hand.
@@jujuUK68 yep no law against filming in public.
the problem is they are dileberately targeting someone in way they can be identified GDPR & data protection both class that as collecting data on that person & their target needs to be aware of the data collection.
data controlers in some organosations like police, councils, & others can use GDPR autherisation for couvert survailance and need to get written permission before starting.
like with other data protection things companies and other organisations need to follow them but they not so strict on person use
private investigators cannot get this RIPA autherisation
Void for Vagueness and lenity: I guess neither of those apply in English & Welsh law.
Common sense 1
"over"-exaggerated?
It's accepted that people will exaggerate a little.
I'm surprised there wasn't a lot more haggling over what "fundamental dishonesty" was versus just "dishonesty". That word's doing a _lot_ of work in the act with not a lot of help in interpretation other than the dictionary definition. I can see that getting set as a thorny exercise for moot court on a law degree.
They do go into great detail about that in the judgement. Basically has to go to the heart of the claim itself. So you could lie through your teeth about irrelevant stuff and that wouldn't affect your damages.
@@artmedialaw Got a case reference please? Might make instructive reading.
Sterling advice. Don't bring your attitudes to Court, don't exaggerate, seek redress, not punishment, do not seek to profit dishonestly in a Civil Court.