Is there fraud in liability claims?

Footballer jailed after team photo reveals lie over injury
The Daily Telegraph / 7th December 2005
A footballer who hurt his knee in a tackle then claimed he had tripped on a
faulty pavement was jailed for 14 days yesterday for contempt of court.
Matthew Hughes, 26, of Pontlottyn, Caerphilly, South Wales, also faces a legal bill of
£32,000 in what is thought to be the first case of its kind.
Two friends who supported his fraudulent compensation claim against Caerphilly
council - Christian Rowlands, 34, and Jamie Verity, 26 - were each fined £1,500 for
contempt. All three were found to have made false "statements of truth" - the
modern equivalent of affidavits - in proceedings against the council.
Mr Justice Silber gave a warning that people who made false witness statements to
bring fraudulent claims could in future expect "substantially longer" sentences than
he imposed on Hughes.
Agenda for change

Governments Response to Fraud
Fraud Act
Fraud Review
National Strategic Fraud Authority (Reporting Centre)
Compensation Act

Insurance Industry Response
Insurance Fraud Bureau
ABI Anti Fraud Committee
ABI publication of value of detected claims (July 2007)
* 2004 – uncovered £200m
Fraud & The Fraud Act

Historically a range of criminal offences at common law and
statute (Theft Acts 1968 –1996). No translation to civil law
and closest principles were Fraudulent Misrepresentation &
Tort of Deceit

Simplified since the introduction of the Fraud Act 2006
(effective 15th January 2007) Now comprises:
- Fraud by false representation (section 2)
- Fraud by failing to disclose information (section 3)
- Fraud by abusing a position of trust (section 4)

Summary conviction: fine £5000 – 12 months imprisonment
On Indictment : Fine Unlimited – 10 years imprisonment
DEFENCE: To
plead or not to plead

The evidential burden: The reversed burden of proof

Standard of proof: Shifting between the civil and criminal
The more serious the allegation the higher the standard
Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd 1957

Severe consequences for unsubstantiated allegations
Cooper v P & O Stena Line Ltd 1999
 Professional Obligations : Codes of Conduct
Medcalf v Mardell AC 2003
 CPR Rules : Part 16 and ‘Queens Bench Guide‘
Challenges

Pre Action Protocol
Current Position – Documentary evidence/timescales

Proposed Reforms
Increase in fast track limit
Strict time limits for admissions - 15 & 30 days
Investigation Overview
C
A
S
E
Desktops
Documentation
Field Investigations
E
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
Expert Investigations/Instructions
Surveillance
Miscellaneous Investigations
Investigative Tools - Legal
 Disclosure – CPR 31
A: Pre-Action Disclosure
B: Standard Disclosure
C: Specific and Non-Party Disclosure
 CPR 18 and 35
 ID Evidence/Proof of Residency - POCA
Witness Statements/Evidence

Courts power to control evidence – CPR 32
Importance of getting it right
Late service

What evidence should be served and when

Witness summaries – tactical use of

False statements and contempt of court proceedings
Intelligence Tools
Human Sources
Open Sources
Access Restricted Sources
Organisations

Law Society/Bar Council

Claims Management Regulation and Monitoring and
Compliance Unit – Ministry of Justice

Security Industries Authority
Expert Evidence

Types of evidence
-

Forensic Engineers
Accident reconstruction experts
Handwriting experts
Medical experts
Forensic accountancy
Mobile phone forensic experts
CCTV analysis
Computer forensic experts – data recovery/mining
Correct Procedure
- when and how to disclose
- permission of the court
Obtaining evidence – admissibility

R v Khan (Sultan) (1997)

Jones v University of Warwick (2003)

Morrison v Avecot Hardware Plc (2003)

Painting v Oxford University (2005)

Conduct Rules
Question time…..