Description
Personal Injury/Abuse of Process/Fraudulent Claims/Fraudulent Misstatements of Extent of Injuries/Dishonesty/Damages/Part 36 Offers/Civil Procedural Rules (CPR)/CPR 3.4(2)/Judicial Discretion and Jurisdiction to Strike Out a Statement of Claim/Ul-Haq v Shah [2009] EWCA Civ 542/Widlake v BAA Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1256
This is an important judgment on statements of case and abuse of process in relation to settled cases on personal injury where a defendant is found liable in damages.
The respondent in this case misrepresented in his statement of case the extent of loss suffered resulting from an injury at work for which the appellant, his former employer, had been found to be liable. This case is an appeal by the employer against the award of damages following the misrepresentation, requesting the Supreme Court to strike out the respondent's statement of case because it constituted an abuse of process.
The principal issues were i) whether a civil court has the power to strike out a statement of case as an abuse of process after a trial where it is held that the defendant is liable in damages; and ii) if so, in what circumstances such a power be exercised.
The Supreme Court over-ruled Ul-Haq v Shah [2009] EWCA Civ 542 and found that; i) the court has jurisdiction, under Civil Procedures Rule 3.4(2)(b) and by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction, to strike out a statement of case on the ground of abuse of process, even after the trial of an action has made a proper assessment of liability and quantum and to do so would defeat a substantive claim; ii) the court has wide discretion as to how its power should be exercised being qualified only by the overriding objective of just determination of any case under Civil Procedures Rule 1.1 and 1.2 and compatibility with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; iii) the test in every case must be what is just and proportionate. A statement of case can therefore only be struck out in exceptional circumstances where the abuse of process is of a scale justifying the claimant loosing his right to have his claim determined.
In this case, the court found that it would not be proportionate or just to strike out the action instead of giving judgment for the claimant; he had suffered injury as a result of the defendant's breach of duty and the abuse of process had not been of sufficient severity to justify depriving the respondent of his substantive right.
The court also gave an overview of the various legal mechanisms that safeguard against abuse of process and dishonest claims: 'They include ensuring that the dishonesty does not increase the award of damages, making orders for costs, reducing interest, proceedings for contempt and criminal proceedings' (at [51]).
