Pegg v Webb & Anor

Where a personal injury claim is dismissed because the claimant cannot prove the nature or extent of the alleged injuries, dishonesty in presenting those injuries may be fundamental dishonesty. The extent of the injuries is central where the claim is confined to damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and related treatment costs. An appellate court may draw its own inferences from facts found by the trial judge, while giving appropriate weight to findings dependent on witness credibility. Deliberate non-disclosure of a subsequent accident, misleading information to the medical expert, and adoption of an unsupported prognosis justified a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The claimant therefore lost QOCS protection and was ordered to pay 70% of the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis.

The claimant brought a low-value personal injury claim arising from a road collision. The claim was dismissed at first instance because the evidence did not establish the nature and extent of the alleged injuries, but the judge did not find fundamental dishonesty. The defendant appealed against the costs order, arguing that the judge should have found that the claim for damages was fundamentally dishonest under CPR 44.16.

The central issue was whether the trial judge’s findings required a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

1. Appeal allowed. The order dismissing the claim was endorsed with a finding that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the claim for damages.
2. Under CPR 44.16, dishonesty concerning the extent of injuries is fundamental where the claim is based on those injuries and associated treatment costs.
3. The court applied the Ivey v Genting Casinos Limited test: first ascertain the claimant’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts, then apply the objective standards of ordinary decent people.
4. The claimant’s deliberate non-disclosure of the quad-bike accident, misleading information to the medical expert, and adoption of an unsupported six-month prognosis justified the inference of fundamental dishonesty.
5. The claimant was ordered to pay 70% of the defendant’s costs, assessed on the indemnity basis, reflecting the finding of fundamental dishonesty and the defendant’s failure to prove that the collision itself was bogus or collusive.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Appeal from the Stoke-on-Trent County Court order of HHJ Rawlings. The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted the costs outcome.