Fundamental Dishonesty

Hello and welcome to this webinar on fundamental dishonesty. My name's Niki Carter. This is part one or two Webinars on fundamental dishonesty and reason. There is so much we need to say we need to is because there are several fundamental dishonesty issues that we need to pick up this particular weapon are. Well, look at the implications in the definition off fundamental dishonesty, particularly in Section 57 off the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. And the very first word, if you like on the slide for the content is definitions. What is meant by the term from the dishonesty in the Courts Act? Um, what exactly? All the consequences of it. It is a finding by the cool or fundamental dishonesty. Are there implications Human Rights Act implications on while we're on the topic of implications? What are the other implications off allegations? Frankly, let's call it allegations of fraud. So what? What meaning with a claimant? Does that really have we? We talk about the consequences of continental dishonesty findings, but I think there are others of one of things I want to talk about. Is content the possibility off the climate being found in contempt of court what the implications might be for that on also wanted just touch on the role off surveillance in this arena. So what role does surveillance play? In any case, the defendant might be seeking to make out or fundamental dishonesty. I wanted to begin, really, by looking at the consequences or fortunate claims, all the possibilities. Let's put it that way. And I think there are a number off them. Certainly, you know, the 1st 1 that comes to mind. And this is long before the section 57 of the courts that comes to mind is really just the loss of damages for any element off the claim found to be fundamental, fundamentally dishonest. So the possibility that dishonesty in relation to a particular feature if you like the play or just mean that loss is not recoverable, you know, And you could perhaps stretched out further that definition on, say that what we're really talking about there is perhaps ex terp I. The idea that the claimants illegality attach is or relates to a certain part of the claim on that that element of the claim will just not being recoverable on That's not particularly new concept, and that's been around long before such 57 came along in 2000 and 50 off course. The second woman need to think about is the Section 57 consequence. In other words, loss of damages for all the elements of the claim, the whole claim where the dishonest or not, if the court decides that fundamental dishonesty pursuant to the definition in Section 57 off the Courts Act attach is to the claim will say much more about that in a moment of bit careful about terms that would see that's the main thrust of this weapon off. The possibility, of course, is that the claimant may find themselves another possibility liable to pay their own costs of dispersants so that the risk if you like, that, the court may, despite a successful win. If you like with Climate, decide that costs should find themselves in the claim, it's called rather than being paid by the defendant as the results off are finding a fraud or dishonesty. The other possibility liability to pay the defendant's costs and disbursements on an assessed rather than a fixed cost spaces on the court, of course, has power under civil procedural 45 minutes, 29 f number 10. That actually goes on to say that you know you remind ourselves about the actual rules, says it says where, in a case to which deception applies any of the exceptions to qualified, one way cost shifty enrolls 44 15 and 44 16 is established. The court will assess the defendant's costs without reference to this rule. Eso It may be that, you know, as a result of the loss, if you like all the our qualified one way cost shifting, not only does the claimant lose that they may also find themselves paying the defendant's costs on assess spaces, despite the fact that the particular case is subject to fix costs again in the wider world, that's got more consequences. All a fraud finding, if you like on adverse Sword again, this is nothing new. Under Rule 44.2 particular, the rule that the section of the rule were thinking off is subsection five D conduct. In other words, conduct says the rule includes a claim where the climate has succeeded but has remember the word exaggerated. The claim Ghazi word exaggerated implies some kind or deliberate. It increases in the value of the claim. And let's not do it here. But we know there are lots of lots of cases on what the word exaggerated might mean. Not necessarily. Does it mean that perhaps you'd broad claim for £300,000 worth of losses on recovered only £100,000? It's not necessarily the case that claim WAAS exaggerated. It might be the case, but but not necessarily so. So the word exaggerated implies some fault. Blame on the car off the claim, um, other consequences off these kinds of allegations, and we're talking wider than sexual 57. Now is the possibility off a claim for by the defendant for exemplary damages on you know, you could remember the case of her son and Cooper from 2015 where the insurance designed it. It was appropriate to pursue the claimant as she was in the original CO. For exemplary damages for her fraudulent conduct. Other possibilities, you know? What about the one picking of a settlement of a judgment? Remember the case of Hayward and Zurich from a few years ago, where the effect, if you like of the cones of dishonesty wants to unpick the claimant thought waas a consent judgment on a sum of money that been awarded and insurers were aloud. If you like to go back to that agreement, that settlement that consent order on done picketing the climate lost everything as a result. Fraud, losing clocks protection off course. You know that some of the subject of our next webinar on this topic, actually, but losing clocks protection. So the basic protection the climate now has qualified one way cough shifting the climate may find themselves having to pay the defendant's costs will say a lot more about that next weapon up lately. Find themselves having to pay a portion anyway of the defendant's costs if the court makes a finding off fundamental dishonesty in that arena. So pursuant to the Kochs rules, which will say much more about that in a second webinar on, do you know, again, potentially. And we've seen this, too, the consequences in relation to track allocation and we put in mind of the case off KEDO and any shore in that particular case. The fraud allegation that the defendants made against the claimant are the allegation was it was a staged accident. It was all set up, resulted in the claim being allocated to the multi track despite the fact that that claimed value wise was never going to be allocated to the multi track. The result, of course, of that ended up with a rule change. If you remember, the rule change being on leaving our any of the portals, if you find yourself allocated to the multi track that is your get out of fixed cost free card, so you avoid the exit fixed costs from the portal she would otherwise have to abide by. So there are implications, I think, really think about an implication for the defendants off making fraud allegation. You know more of the court's time. We need to be used. More of the court's resources really need to be used, and it may well impact one track allocation and have all sorts knock on consequences on the other possibilities. And let's just finish the list because there are a lot. And I think when claimants of considering no what are the possible consequences are offering an allegation, leaving a sign that that the two fundamental dishonesty consequences there are many to consider. It may be that the court will decide that the claimant will have to pay the defendant's costs on the indemnity basis. You know, that's one of the punitive measures that the court can mete out rather than paying costs on standard basis on the order may well be for the defendant's costs be paid on the indemnity basis. As a result, off the claimants conduct on. You know that goes without talking about the potential for committal. Proceedings potentially are fine. Are custodial sentence our proceedings in the tour deceit potentially with the possibility of an order for exemplary damages, as we saw earlier entry on the insurance fraud register. Knock on effects on employment, Social standing on. You know, that's without the possibility off contempt proceedings, which could result in two years in prison. On if we look at that particular one, we could see the case you I and Dulled and Terrel, where the respondents were involved allegedly in a stage road traffic accident on the exit, was part a big fraud ring. All three respondents were president saying aware off the attempt to defraud insurers on the argument from the insurers was that that this was a fraud. This was a deceitful claim in reply to defense through the argument from the claimants Waas that they threatened to seek indemnity costs on the basis of the baseless allegations on witness statements were served by the individuals. Are all those individuals All those cones abandoned their claims prior to the trial? In this set of proceedings, the African insurer applied for committal for contempt of court. The judge of the committal hearing, saying a serious view was taken off for Jalin canes in terms of the cost of the insurance industry, etcetera. So the court took the view that custodial sentences in this case were an important deterrent, skeptical against fraudulent claims. As we you know, we saw the consequences in terms of what may flow from a fraud allegation, go well beyond the possibilities that we're going to talk about in this webinar off section 57 fundamental dishonesty finding which we are now going to talk about. But I think we need to consider that there are other consequences for the climate. I think one important point to make is on claimants perhaps are concerned about what might happen, what my consequences be off these allegations off allegations are made. We have to be honest and say well, although it's a civil claim, the risk has to bay that there is the possibility off a prison sentence. Contempt of court proceedings can be brought in these cases. Commission to apply that could be made by the defendant on a prison sentence is a risk we have to be, I think honest about that. Let's take a look at you know, the the flip side if you like off this because in terms off fundamental dishonesty under Section 57 what we have to look at is, how does this work? Is this just claimants, you know, kind of defendant be fundamentally dishonest? Well, in 80 billion sales and rich energy, I'm from earlier all in this year. The court wanted to look at a situation with a claimant, had not pleaded fraud against the defendant, hadn't done so on. The judge rejected the argument that in the absence of pleaded allegations, the judge was unable to find that the defendant had being dishonest on the court said it wasn't necessary for the claimant to plead fraud in this particular situation. Reference was made to practice direction to Rule 60 which is all pleadings, isn't it? Paragraph 8.2. On that, That paragraph provides the climate must, particularly as the various allegations in his particular the climb where he wishes to rely on them in support of his kind. And it says these include any allegation of Ford unnoticed or knowledge off a fact. Now the court took the view that as long as the facts upon which an inference of dishonesty may be based on, pleaded if evidence emerges at the trial, which the climate considers sufficient to equate to dishonesty even though it wasn't able to clean it before trial. If it's put to the relevant witness so that witness can answer it, then a call could be invited and may make evidential findings that such a witness was indeed dishonest on the court took the view that is just simply part off the course. Ordinary adjudicative function. We need to contrast this, and we will in a in a short moment, with the situation in practice direction in relation to the obligations on the defendant. In terms of making allegations or fraud on, there is no such matching requirement, so it's It's in terms of the claimant on the particulars of claim with his obligation of roses. But I think it's a TBI cases really important because it makes it clear that it's not ah, bar to the court. Finding that friend has been dishonest. If the claimant hasn't pleaded us, such no, your your instinct is. But embraces would say if that becomes clear during the trial and it's clearly put to the defendant. Witness counsel may well apply a point to make an amendment to the particulars of claim to make that allegation in order to not fall foul if you like off in practice direction, back destruction of matches Part 16 1 of the consequences we talked about in relation to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, waas contempt on I thought it was just important, really, to remind ourselves off on no doubt remind the claimant off. The risks that are evident here on our contempt. Appears 30 to 14 in the rules, and it's quite clear proceedings for contempt may be brought against the person who makes or causes to be made a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth on I think it's really important when claimants indeed witnesses are signing documents, and that could be the loss of schedule. It could be a witness statement of particulars that the significance of statement of truth is clear to that witness, then needs to be a in each firm course. It does some kind of system to record that that advice was actually given on a clear record, really. Or, you know, the claimant's lawyer explaining the significance to the client. What does the witness need to know? Well, they need to know it's an important document. They need to know if their inaccuracies there could be criminal proceedings. They should check it carefully. I feel free to make any amendments, additions, whatever they need. It's one of facts and not opinions, and I think any doubts about it. They should raise that with their solicitor statement of truth. Um says the rule and its role twenties and checkpoint one is equivalent to the aural evidence that witness would give on includes a statement that that witness believes that fax to be true on, you know, of course, 20 point to know this, to verify a staple of truth is, I believe the back stated in its witness statement are true. The role goes on to remind pro people who sign with these statements. 20.3 Attention is drawn to Rule 32.14 which sets out the consequences are verifying or witness same containing a full statement without on honest belief in its truth. So it's make clear that there is a connection between those signatures, if you like on and the consequences that might flow in terms off contempt on Remember, the court's powers include up to two years in prison for contempt proceedings that it's a real and present risk on something. I think that, you know, insurers are not slow in deciding to take on. Needless to say, the costs don't justify. But that's not the point. It sends a clear message out to claimants potential claimants about what the risks might bay. Let's remind ourselves off The relevant section in the Criminal Justice Courts Act 2015 which, as we know came into force on the 13th of April, are 2050. It provides as follows in any PRK where the court finds the climate is intact the damages but is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that time it's been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the claim. It must dismiss the entirety of the crime unless it's at survived the claimant with suffer substantial injustice as a result. Now, the only defense if you liked that dismissal is the suffering off, substantially injustice. What's clear, really is that there is no reciprocal sanctions on a defendant who behaves in a dishonest manner. Or we just talked about the claim. It's only we're course if you like. If there is an allegation that defendant is dishonest, this section does not help commitment, way have to be in the wider world of fraud and dishonesty on for this to work on what we don't have in the section is any riel definition or any definition, naturally off what substantial injustice might actually mean. Clearly, the claimants going to need to make out how the dismissal would affect them on why that would cause them substantial injustice on in smaller cases, that may be difficult. Perhaps in a more substantial case, that test becomes a little bit more important. Certainly, Lord Foxley, conservative, the conservative minister of state for justice in hand, Assad at the time said that dismisses the claim would not always be appropriate on its use. Should be used in a flexible way to ensure the provision was fair. Proportion er on the court would be expected to work with. The provisions are taken to mean the court will have some discretion in relation to its application. Let's take a look at an example. I got an example. Remember, You know, we were very slow to get these examples coming through because, of course, 2015 the day the activists so recent, So we were no covered in examples off what quite some of these terms might mean. I'm The case is Smith and Ashwell in 2019 and it's a gas engineer who the court firms interact with damages from him for his employer for an ankle injury. They fell into a hole at work. You haven't faked the injury or the continuing pain. There's been a degrees at the court overstatement off his pain on its effect on him, the court took the view that the climate had not been fundamentally dishonest, but engaged in conduct too. I said, interesting phrase, actually to convince rather than deceive the medical experts. As to his injury, I'm following the employers vigorous attempts to avoid compensating him. There was surveillance sentence on the climate, was seen walking not completely normally, but with apparently he's without his walking AIDS on the court made the following comment actually about surveillance evidence, which I think is interesting, and it talked about the surveillance evidence as being a snap short. In any event, the court took the view. Even if the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest, it wouldn't be appropriate under the principle stated in someone's case, which we'll talk about it in a moment. To strike out became rather than give judgment on continent the ordinary way the climate suffered a painful injury, he had been required to resist the defendant's vigorous attempts to avoid responsibility for this accident, which was accepted was entirely it's hits fault. It's fault with the employers on the climate would suffer substantial injustice if the claim were dismissed. The following damages were awarded and we were in the region here, £44,000 for generals. Past losses of just over 90,000 care about 16,000 added to which future lost earnings off £100,000 of future care off £107,000. And it's an interesting example of the the courts taken the view that substantial injustice, not so much, was just depriving the claimant off those sums of money and off the claim, but that their crime and had an entitlement to those sums on that the claimant would have suffered injustice by the loss of that entitlement on, I think you know it takes us back and we will see it in the moment to some of the words used some when reference was made to this issue in summers. In fact, before we ever got Section 57 to just what it might mean to somebody to lose the claim that the justified let's say, claim that they have, let's take a look at fundamental now what does that actually mean? We know it's fundamental dishonesty. Well, it's fundamental in size and importance on the third thing, really is the effect of the dishonesty is fundamental to a substantial part on the court goes on to talk about both in size and importance off the claim for damages now in terms of practical implications. Let's let's take a look. Well, how does this work alone? Person injury cases potentially are caught by this term. Will will come in just a moment to look at dates on when this actually applies, because we need to talk a little bit back when proceedings were issued. But bear with it just for a moment. The first thing is it does apply to all persons cases, which are called by the provisional say more about dating a minute it goes further in. It captures both the primary claim and also any case behavior. You know, a related claims, such as that of a passenger in the same car. But we know the defendant must make an application in respect. Okay, the court must make of finding or fundamental discipline sticks. It's not enough that the judge finds the claims came not made out, or claiming that the court judge takes the view that the claimant causation isn't made out. There's not the same things the court must make a finding off on. Of course, the first thing is tribute, of course, that the court must first made a finding of an entitlement to damages. So it is only relevant if you lightened claims that are going to be successful. The claim has to be entitled to damages in that section. 57 sub one sub. This camp pose a dilemma for defendants because defendants can't make applications in a case where liability is an issue, unless they're prepared to concede that the claimants entitled to damages. That may be curious situation where defendants are forced to admit liability before making application so the court can consider making an order under the act that can be quite a high risk strategy if you like. In cases where liability is actually in issue, we should remember before we go on, the only a small percentage of cases are actually forgery on, I think. You know, if you read the some of the press put out by the insurance lobby, a distorted view could could be obtained. As to the extent of this issue, it is a 20% of cases and that I think we need to remember. Um, fundamental dishonesty is much wider than the test before. We need to bear that in mind. It's important to be clear that it's a much wider test than any test that we've had in the past for fraud. Don't forget that we talked about applications being made. One of things we need to be clear about is that his application school so occur at the conclusion of the trial. So, for example, where you know the trial has ended, the defendant may then make their application for fundamental dishonesty on they can also occur at any site with is a finding of entitlement to damages. So, for example, where a default judgment perhaps is being obtained, or at the conclusion of Stage three hearings in a political potentially no question. And we saw it in case called Brighton and Hope Buses and Brooks in 2000 and 11 that, you know, suspended custodial sentences for content call were made in plea, I claims in those cases, you know, those sorts of cases. Perhaps the answer is should not be pursuit off final hearing. Nor is it likely the court would find an entitlement to damages in a scenario like that. So, for a specific, the fundamental dishonesty finding we talked earlier about in relation to a related claim on this is we have very clear about this related claim is a very clear definition. It has to be acclaimed. The P I. It has to be in connection with the same incident. It has to be someone other than the claimant. So it says by a person other than the person who made the primary claim so related action in relation to property damage, your car hire alone will not serve ice. Such an action can't be related claim. It's not clear whether proceedings have to be issued in relation to a related claims. Section 57 8 says the claim includes a counterclaim, but we don't get any further definition, so there are lots of knots. Questions about what related to claim Mike may. Certainly, in terms off who the burden is on on, the burden is on the defendant. It's the answer on the argument is that it's only the civil servant astounded. That's appropriate. There's no question about it. But you know whether or not the court's going to decide that the civil standard is appropriate is an interesting issue. What's appropriate, if you like, is whether or not of the court decides that standard that they're going to decide fundamental dishonesty on easy. In fact, the civil burden. You know, there's lots of examples of the court suggesting that, in fact, that although the civil burden approved balance of probabilities more likely than not is the appropriate test, the standard might be quite a high one way again. There's very little detail about what what the court might need to be satisfied all before the findings would be made. Fundamental dishonesty need only be found in relation to an element off the claim to trigger dismissal. All of it. I think we need to be clear about that so only needs to be respected element of the climb. But then the whole claim disappears when striking out the claim the court was don't have to assess. The damage is it would have paid. So even though the courts dismissing claim regulation 50 cent wheat fall means it has to recall the damages, so they may have to be a detailed assessment of damages in cases off that kind, the damages that would have been awarded a set off against any costs became is ordered to pay, and that's quite important. That's why the court has to assess the damage is it would have paid the sum would have been awarded in damages is gonna be set off against the defendant's costs. It's not clear on the act isn't clear about this. What happens where the potential damages exceed some payable? I I think we could be pretty clear that we can't be telling claimants they can expect the balance. It's a right of set off on, so it seems unlikely, the kind that will collect the balance if you like. The loss of damages is taken into account in subsequent criminal or contempt proceedings. The fact that the claim has lost those damages will be taken into account when any sentencing ghost will willing types of fraudulent passport proceedings or contempt proceedings on a fundamental dishonesty section. 50 cents of eight makes it clear that it applies to a counterclaim. We need to be clear that is, for the defendant to make the application on for the claimant to defend it. What is clear is that the section shouldn't be likely used when there's no question that Section 59 subsets and sub seven of the act make it clear that this is not a likely news issue. This is a serious application, an allegation of the Kourtney's take it very seriously. It's clear also that the court has other powers. When we talked about some of those other pounds short of a complete dismissal to deal with lesser offenses, let's call it on. You know, certainly corks on which we'll talk about later qualified one were cost shifting on. The loss of that provides for an enforcement costs orders in appropriate cases. And of course, also there's a general discussion in relation to cost the 44.2 of the rules. Anyway. Fundamental dishonesty needs to be substantial and deliberate. Section 57 off the act became law. We talked about the 30 ankle 2050 on it applies to all P I claims where proceedings were issued on or after that date. So there's no question that we need to be live to this section. But I think aware that this is not necessarily something that should mean claim that should walk away from genuine claims for fear in rights and satellite information services. You may remember this claim with the climate with really nasty injuries in an accident at work, the defendant sort dismisses the claim its claim see Section 57. All the act there were inconsistencies in the claims came and the short version story is the claimants playing future care was reduced from pleaded some in excess of £73,000. I think 3000 to just over 2000 on the defendant. All Judas amounted to fundamental dishonesty for the purposes all Section 57 now interesting issue, really the climate schedule of loss, which contained a large care claim signed by the kind prepared by his legal representatives. And it was criticized for the distinct lack of narrative to enable it to be understood on when the claim it was challenging. In cross examination, he said he thought the schedule was similar to a set of accounts prepared by an accountant that he would sign in reliance on the professional expertise of the drafter. In other words, he'd left it to his expert lawyers to put together the calculation. What's clear about this case is it highlights the need consistency of approach between the case presented by the experts and legal advisers on the case understood by the claimant. The discrepancies at the court between figure claimed figure awarded was based on the floor manner in which the claimants case was presented by way of expert evidence on the schedule was not of loss on DNO. As a result, off, any dishonesty on the part off the Cayman upsets really, really important schedules make it very, very clear exactly what's been kind on the basis off the claim. The court of the view the climate was broadly consistent in relation to his needs. Ongoing assistance, the judge accepted. The claimants wife might occasionally do tasks for him, such as reaching into a covered for him on should be present to provide any support while he was showering to these injuries on the court said that fitted with what the climate had said, the rejection of the kayak line as it was pleaded flowed really from a proper analysis of what was being done for the claimant on the conclusion that that wasn't really something that damages could sound in. In fact, the judge said, it's almost impossible to value that kind of occasional assistance. So clearly, the pleaded case needs to accurately portray the client's claim on that. Clients need to fully understand exactly what the schedule means and what's included in the schedule in case of Hayden on Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells back in 2016 calls very, very critical off the schedule encounter scheduled and said the following thing the final updated schedule exceeds 89 pages. It's far too long. It contains unwarranted discussion. Argument in submission. On the other hand, the defendant's count schedule is on Julie spotted and only addresses the defendant's best case. No, these are not waste. Put together schedules of losses. Let's take us a contrast. The London Organizing Committee on Cine field case on In that particular case, the climate broke his wristwatch. Volunteering at the Games actually wasn't Olympic games in 2012. He brought a claim on included in his claim. Wars are playing for around £31,000 worth of losses, including £14,000 off of gardening cost it costs. His witness said he and his wife did all of the gardening prior to the accident. He could no longer do it. Any, then had to pay a gardener. Mr Price on disclosed invoices from Mr Price on the problem Waas that the gardener provided a witness statement saying that he hasn't changed his always work to the gardener for the It's in Fields. He hasn't changed his hours after the accident on none of the invoices prepared well prepared by him in that particular case, the recorder in first instance found the inaccurate schedule of loss was a result off model and confusion or not dishonesty on that. The dishonesty, if you like in relation to the invoices in the witness statement, wasn't peripheral. The dishonesty was premeditated. On maintained over many months. The court took the view, in that case on appeal, that in fact, what should have happened is that the recorder should have found that Mr Simple Waas fundamentally dishonest on you know, it wasn't sufficient to argue that Mr Sin Field haven't appreciated that by creating the invoices, which he confessed that he had done. He thought that was fine because he said he'd already paid Mr Price and there was nothing wrong in creating invoices of some of that he'd already paid, the court said. And the test the dishonesty was an objective one. If by the ordinary stain standards that state of mind was dishonest, it was relevant if the defendant judged it by different standards on a very interesting comparison was made beyond the scope of this weapon. Our case called Ivy and Genting casinos about that objective test, if you like, with dishonesty, the recorder was wrong. Mr. Sinful was found to be fundamentally dishonest. Zero small amount of these turns on in terms of substantial injustice. What's going to be required is some kind of justice are rising as a consequence or the loss off those damages. Now, if it's just the loss of those damages in the court, rejected the idea that Mr Sin Field would be the the victim, if you like of substantial injustice, the court said. If it would just the loss that those damages, then the effect of sexual 57 would just be completely destroyed. Every kind of would say, Well, I lost my damages. What is clear is if the defendant proves off balance of probabilities. The climate has acted dishonestly and had substantially affected the presentation of his case in respected liability or quantum in a way which potentially adversely affects the defendant, judged in the context of particular facts and circumstances of the litigation. Then it's appropriate for there to be a finding our fundamental dishonesty. You know, we saw in a case called Resume US on the Ministry of Justice in 2018. The practical considerations although the case looked at fundamental dishonesty, the claims came failed on its merits is not relevant in a case like that's only going to be relevant where the claimants successful or would win on liability. The balance for ability standard applies to whether on the evidence the claimant has acted dishonestly. If the claimant is found to have acted dishonesty, the judge will need to consider whether that dishonesty goes to the heart of the claim or whether it's peripheral to the kind that's really that you should in terms off Human Rights Act. Ah, judgment is clearly a possession within the meaning of Article one protocol one off the European Convention on Human Rights, and the effect of striking out McCain damages is to deprive someone off that possession. And it's only permissible if it's in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided by all by law. On we saw that fair Cough Homes and Summers 2012 before we got Section 57 of the act that the judgment is a possession and it's important medical appreciates depriving some of the that is potentially breach of their human rights. Lastly, let's take a look at surveillance on the case of Patel on a River Midland's from earlier this year, the court decided that the conduct off the Kleiman, who had been injured in a road collision on presented to neurological experts a someone who was unable to move or communicate. But surveillance evidence showed in walking and talking the court of the view. His dishonesty was objectively judged by the standards or ordinary decent people. I mean, Genting mentioned it was fundamentally summits. The case was not one of exaggerating disability, but of actually faking it on the climate submitted. Substantial injustice meant that the claim shouldn't be dismissed. The court took the view. There was no substantial injustice. Does dismissing the entire claim our climate submitted that the court couldn't do so are because of our protected party? His claimants on son was also party to the action on because of his litigation, friends, dishonest conduct. The court took the view, but the claim and himself have been fundamentally dishonest. There was no question that whether or not the climate had capacity was not relevant to the consideration off whether or not he'd been fundamentally dishonest are in any event the claim its capacity assessment tied the claim its capacity to the disorder of which he was complaining on the claimant had to be presumed in this case, toe have capacity now. There's no question that in terms off fundamental dishonesty, what we see is that this is a tall order. If you like for defendants to pull off, it's beyond fraud on It's certainly a loaded to be judged on the standards off the civil standard. It's clear that the court is to take the matter seriously on that. This is a question of discretion for the judge. Nature, Individual kites we'll see in the next webinar on this topic are what the implications are in respect of qualified one way cost shifting. But that's the end of this one. So I hope it's been helpful on thank you very much listening