Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd.

Dishonest exaggeration of a personal injury claim does not, by itself, give the court power to strike out the entire claim where the claimant suffered a genuine injury caused by the defendant’s negligence. The court remains bound by established authority on that issue. A different approach may apply where fraud makes it impossible to do justice. Questions concerning any power under the CPR or inherent jurisdiction were left for the Supreme Court.

The claimant brought a personal injury claim arising from the defendant’s admitted negligence. Although he had substantially exaggerated his symptoms and losses, the trial judge assessed damages at approximately £88,000 and gave permission to appeal. The defendant argued that the dishonesty justified striking out the claim entirely, so that the claimant should recover nothing despite the genuine injury.

The Court of Appeal considered whether it had power to strike out the claim under the CPR or its inherent jurisdiction, and whether the authorities relied upon created a conflict warranting permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Appeal dismissed. Time for the late application was extended. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.

1. The defendant’s submission that a claimant who had dishonestly exaggerated his claim should receive nothing had already been rejected in Shah v Ul-Haq [2009] EWCA Civ 542. The Court of Appeal had held that it had no power to strike out the claim in its entirety despite the claimant’s disgraceful conduct.
2. The same approach had been followed in Widlake v BAA Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 1256, where the court dealt with an exaggerated claim dishonestly advanced after the dishonesty had been discovered. The present court saw no reason not to follow those decisions and applied the rule of stare decisis.
3. Arrow Nominees v Blackledge [2000] 2 BCLC 167 was distinguishable. It concerned fraud of a wholly different kind, in circumstances where it was no longer possible to do justice. That reasoning did not govern a case in which a genuine injury had occurred and damages could be assessed.
4. Although the insurance industry’s concern about false and exaggerated claims was recognised, it did not justify departing from the existing authorities. The questions whether a power to strike out existed under the CPR or inherent jurisdiction, and whether a county court possessed such jurisdiction, were matters for the Supreme Court if it chose to consider them. The court was not persuaded that conflicting Court of Appeal decisions made permission appropriate, unlike the situation referred to in Rickards v Rickards [1990] Fam 194.

Lady Justice Smith agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the defendant’s appeal and refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Manchester County Court — HHJ Tetlow assessed damages for the claimant’s genuine personal injury at approximately £88,000 and gave permission to appeal.