General liability

Written by Charles Appleby

Key developments in 2024 

This has been a dramatic year for cases involving fundamental dishonesty. In Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd, the King's Bench Division found that the Claimant, who had suffered a moderately severe brain injury, had dishonestly exaggerated her symptoms and attempted to inflate the value of her claim by over £1million. Although liability was admitted and, but for her dishonesty, she would still have been entitled to damages just under £600,000, the Court dismissed the whole of her claim. The Judge found that, given the extent of her deception, there would be no substantial injustice to the Claimant by her losing the genuine elements of her claim along with the dishonest ones.

A few months later, in Shaw v Wilde, a Claimant was found to have lied about the extent of disabilities arising from a significant motor incident. He advanced a claim in the region of £6.5million. The Court found that, notwithstanding that he had proved a genuine claim assessed at over £1.2million and depriving him of that claim would cause significant financial hardship, there would be no substantial injustice in dismissing the whole of his claim.

These cases show that, where Fundamental Dishonesty can be proved, a Claimant will have a high bar to overcome if they are to avoid an order under s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, dismissing the honest elements of their claim along with the dishonest ones. However, the stakes remain high for both parties. A Defendant that fails to make out allegations of dishonesty at trial risks significant judicial criticism and, in some circumstances, may face an order to pay Claimant's costs on the indemnity basis. 

What to look out for in 2025 

The pressure that the Courts can exercise on parties to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") continues to increase. As of October 2024, the Civil Procedure Rules now include formal backing for the Court of Appeal's decision made in Churchill V Merthyr Tydfil CBC late last year. Judges will now, when giving directions, be obliged to consider whether to encourage ADR or to make an order formally compelling parties to engage in it. 

The procedures that parties are directed to follow will vary depending on the circumstances of the case. In many instances, this may take the form of conventional mediation. In others, such as where Co-Defendants have a contractual relationship, the procedure may be one that they have formally agreed in advance. However, the Court can order a party to follow a unique procedure that they would not have been bound to follow otherwise, such as in Churchill, where the Claimant was required to use an internal complaints procedure.

We highlighted in 2023 that changes would likely be coming to the discount rate, which is applied when calculating the value of awards for future losses, and they have arrived this month. From 11th January 2025 the new rate has been set at 0.5%, a return to a positive rate following the previous minus 0.25% rate. The return to a positive rate may reflect improved investment market conditions and may help insurers mitigate the impact of claims inflation, which on the injury side has been largely driven by rising living costs, wage inflation and care and medical expenses. Time will tell whether there is an increased appetite for Periodical Payment Orders ("PPOs") or even challenge to the appropriateness of the rate on individual claims.

Changes have also been announced in Scotland and Northern Ireland, with a new rate of +0.5% in both of those jurisdictions.

Explore Annual Insurance Review 2025