Locke v Stuart & Anor

In a civil claim alleging a fraudulent road traffic accident, the party alleging dishonesty bears the burden of proving it on the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of the allegation and its consequences require strong and cogent evidence, but do not create a different standard of proof.

The court may assess the evidence cumulatively. Dishonest exaggeration, implausible accounts, concealed relationships, links between apparently connected claims and investigative evidence may together establish that an alleged accident was deliberately manufactured. Findings must remain confined to the parties and evidence properly before the court.

The claimant sought modest damages for injuries allegedly sustained as a passenger in a road traffic accident. The second defendant insurer alleged that the collision was deliberately staged as part of a wider fraudulent claims scheme involving several related accidents and referral fees. The first defendant did not attend the trial. The court considered the claimant’s evidence, evidence concerning links between the participants, Facebook material, telephone evidence and evidence of earlier dishonest exaggeration.

The central issues were whether the accident occurred as alleged and whether the insurer had proved that it was manufactured for financial gain.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The insurer bore the burden of proving the pleaded dishonesty. The applicable standard was the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. Because the allegations were serious and carried serious consequences, strong and cogent evidence was required, but the standard itself did not change.
2. Assessment of the evidence. The court was entitled to consider the evidence cumulatively. The claimant’s failure to recall any genuine details, false accounts of injury, inconsistent explanations for the occupants and journey, and the implausibility of the alleged driving circumstances undermined the account of the accident. The evidence of dishonest exaggeration shortly after the alleged collision was particularly significant.
3. Systematic fraud. Evidence concerning nine accidents showed common features, including referrals by AW Claims, short-term hire of the allegedly guilty vehicle, numerous occupants, geographical concentration and links between participants. The evidence of links, including Facebook relationships, had to be treated with care and within its limits. In combination with the other evidence, it established on the balance of probabilities that AW Claims had orchestrated a series of fraudulent accidents.
4. Accident G. The telephone evidence established that the claimant and his brother knew Nathan McKinley, a passenger in the other vehicle, and had lied to conceal that fact. Further dishonesty, including concealment of the brother’s football activity and the claimant’s relationship with the first defendant, reinforced the inference that the collision was staged.
5. The second defendant proved that the alleged accident was manufactured to support a series of personal injury claims. The action was dismissed, and there was judgment for both defendants against the claimant.