"Fundamental dishonesty" and "substantial injustice"

Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 (KB)

When it was enacted, s57 of the Criminal Justice Act 2015 was the cause of much discussion. Section 57(2) of the Act requires the court, with one possible exception set out in s57(3), to dismiss a claim for personal injuries even when a claimant has been found to be entitled to damages, if on the balance of probabilities, either the primary claim or a related claim is found to be fundamentally dishonest. While the clear important objective of this legislation was to deter exaggerated or dishonest claims, it is obviously particularly attractive to defendants and insurers, when despite a finding of negligence, they would be protected from paying damages to the claimant and the claimant would lose the benefit of Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS). Under normal circumstances, this would prevent a defendant from being able to recover the costs of successfully defending an action. A good example of a situation in which two wrongs can make a right for certain defendants in"exceptional circumstances", which had not been defined.