Levenes won a road traffic accident trial for a Hungarian client 

The Claimant was driving a hired vehicle. He passed a roundabout when he noticed an emergency light flashing on his dashboard. He pulled over to the verge of the road and stopped with his emergency lights on, to check what the issue was. The Claimant was sat in his car when he was struck by the Defendant’s car.

As a result of the collision, the Claimant sustained a soft tissue injury to his neck, chest injury, including contusion and fractured ribs. He also developed tinnitus to his right ear.

It was a high-speed impact rear end shunt, which could be seen in the photographs taken at the scene by the Claimant resulting in his vehicle being written off.

Liability was admitted by the Defendant’s insurer in the MOJ portal.

In order to prove the Claimant’s injuries, we obtained medical reports from a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and from a Consultant ENT Surgeon. An interim payment was requested.

An offer was made by the Claimant, but as the Defendant did not respond to it, the case was taken out of the MOJ portal and Part 7 proceedings were issued.

Have insurers got carried away with allegations of Fundamental Dishonesty?

The Defendants in their Defence admitted liability but disputed causation and quantum. The Defendant did not accept the Claimant’s offer, nor did they engage in any settlement discussions.

The insurers made no offer of settlement at all, pinning their hopes on being able to discredit the Claimant at trial.

Levenes therefore had no alternative, but to take the Claimant’s case to trial.

A genuine claim can be dismissed if any part of it was dishonest

During the court proceedings, the Defendants alleged that the Claimant was deliberately exaggerating his claim and were seeking to strike out the Claimant’s case on the grounds of fundamental dishonesty. They highlighted that the Claimant did not start physiotherapy treatment immediately, that he failed to report his tinnitus to his GP and failed to report that he had a previous accident in which he suffered from tinnitus to his instructed ENT medical expert.

Levenes argued that the Claimant had no intention to hide that he had a previous road traffic accident, he did mention his previous accident to his instructed Orthopaedic surgeon, and he did tell the expert that he had recovered from those injuries by then. The nature of the injuries was not discussed at the medical examination. The Claimant was then seen by an ENT expert, upon recommendation of his Orthopaedic surgeon.

By the time the Claimant was examined by the ENT medical expert, he forgot about his previous tinnitus as he had already recovered from it by his second accident.

When he realised his mistake, he disclosed the medical report of his first accident to his ENT medical expert and to the Defendants. The previous medical expert’s prognosis of recovery was in line with what the Claimant stated.

Our instructed ENT medical expert reviewed the previous accident medical report, and his medical opinion did not change – the Claimant’s current tinnitus is likely to be whiplash-tinnitus syndrome which was related to his second accident.

The Claimant also argued that he could not seek treatment immediately after the accident due to the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, however as soon as he received an interim payment from the Defendant for physiotherapy treatments, he had undergone those treatments.

Trial

During the trial the barrister acting for the Defendant’s insurance company tried hard to discredit the Claimant and his witnesses during cross-examination, arguing against every part of the claim. The Defendant tried to persuade the Judge that the Claimant was dishonest. They have an incentive to try this tactic because if any part of a claim is found to be dishonest, the court can dismiss the entire claim on the grounds of fundamental dishonesty and the accident victim then gets no damages and has to face a huge legal bill.

The trial judge found the Claimant to be a creditable witness as well as his witnesses and made a judgment in the Claimant’s favour.

The Claimant bettered his offer at trial and as a result he recovered an extra 10% damages, penalty interest of 10% and indemnity costs.

The Claimant was represented by our Hungarian lawyer, Maria Kosztyu and Partner, Ricky Baba.

Commenting on the case, Mr Baba said “All too often we see insurers seeking to argue that the Claimant has been dishonest, when in fact, an honest mistake has been made. We are all human and just because the Claimant had forgotten some of the details of his past history when he saw a medical expert should not be taken as evidence of dishonesty. It is good to have got our assessment of this case right and the client was rewarded with extra damages, penalty interest and indemnity costs, but he should not have been put through the ordeal of going to court. It is time that insurers took a look in the mirror and asked themselves if they have gone too far”.

Accident compensation claims

Seeking the expert advice of a specialist road collision lawyer can be crucial in ensuring that your claim goes smoothly and that you get the support you need to recover from your injuries.

You can trust in the experience and knowledge of our team of professional injury lawyers to ensure that you receive the maximum amount of compensation that you are entitled to.

Get in touch today and find out within 1 hour if you have a claim. Call us on 0800 048 2355 or request a call back now.