Judge rules Claimant is "fundamentally

dishonest" in her absence on the basis

of Telematic evidence

A Judge in the UK has ruled that an Accident did not occur as alleged or at all and that the claim of the Plaintiff was "fundamentally dishonest" in the absence of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant and on the basis of Telematic evidence.

The Judge made his ruling when neither the Driver nor the Defendant attended Court.

In the case of Wise v Hegarty & Alpha Insurance the Plaintiff sought Damages from the First Named Defendant as a result of injuries alleged to have been suffered in an RTA

The insurer of the Defendant was joined as a further party.

The insurer defended the claim on the basis that the Accident did not occur based on Telematic evidence from the First Named Defendant’s vehicle indicating that in fact the vehicle was not at the Accident scene and had not been involved in an Accident and also that there were numerous social media links between the Plaintiff and the other persons in her vehicle and the First Named Defendant who she says collided with her.

Ms. Wise’s Solicitor’s obviously came to the conclusion that the claim was dishonest and came off record prior to the Hearing. However, at the request of the Defendant’s insurers the Court proceeded with the Hearing in the absence of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant as it was satisfied that the parties were sufficiently put on notice of the Hearing date and the insurer wished to proceed to obtain a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

Having heard submissions from the Legal Representatives of the Insurance Company the Court was satisfied to proceed with the Hearing in relation to the allegation of fundamental dishonesty.

The Court referred to precedent cases and to the rules of Court which allow the Court to proceed to make a finding of "fundamental dishonesty" even where a party does not appear or discontinues Proceedings. The Court took the view that if it can proceed to make such a finding when a claim has been discontinued it can also do so when the parties simply fail to attend Court.

The Insurance Company called a Telematics Expert and on the basis of his technical evidence the Court ruled that the vehicle was in fact some miles away from the locus of the alleged Accident at the time it is alleged to have occurred. The Expert gave a considerable amount of technical evidence to the Court including evidence to the effect that a firm fix can be given to a vehicle’s position if four satellites confirm that position. In this case the Expert adduced evidence from 15/19 satellites indicating that the vehicle was on a completely different road some distance away from the alleged locus of the Accident when the Accident is stated to have occurred.

Further evidence given by the expert ruled out the possibility of the vehicle having been involved in an Accident on any other dates around the time of the alleged accident. The expert said that the equipment relied upon is extremely sensitive and contains an accelerometer which measures the extent to which the vehicle accelerates or stops or the G forces which are applied to it.

The Judge not only found that the evidence presented was reliable but that same was compelling. As both the Plaintiff and the Defendant failed to turn up for Court the Judge took the view that he was in possession of sufficient evidence to make a finding of "fundamental dishonesty" on the part of the Claimant and that she was essentially in concert with the First Named Defendant.

The Judge also considered the significant amount of social media interaction between the occupants of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the First Named Defendant. The Court clearly came to the conclusion that the parties knew each other and for example they all had attended the same school. The Court went on to find that there had in fact been a fraudulent conspiracy between the parties to invent an Accident and that there had been fundamental dishonesty and that the Accident complained of in fact never took place. The Court also found that the First Named Defendant had been dishonest in delivering a Defence which conceded that the collision took place at a time, date and location alleged by the Plaintiff. The Court concluded that the Drivers of both vehicles had been fundamentally dishonest and he dismissed the Proceedings.

If you require any further detail or advice, please contact John Reid in O’Rourke Reid
Dial: +353 1 240 1200
Email: jreid@orourkereid.com
LinkedIn John Reid LinkedIn Profile
Blog John Reid Solicitor

This document is for information purposes only and does not purport to represent legal advice.  
© O’Rourke Reid 2019