Fraud or finality? Supreme Court to decide

Is a compensator to be precluded from re-opening a settlement agreement relating to a personal injury claim in which it suspected the claimant was dishonestly exaggerating his symptoms for financial gain but nonetheless entered into the settlement?

This question is at the heart of Zurich Insurance v Hayward, which was heard by the Supreme Court today.

With judgment expected some time in the next few months, the court’s decision – whatever it might be – will certainly emerge into a claims environment in which fraud remains very much front and centre; whether in the work to take forward the recommendations of the Insurance Fraud Task Force or in respect of implementation of the reforms to whiplash and small claims proposed in the 2015 Autumn Statement.

Please feel free to contact me by email if you would like a more detailed account of the day-long hearing before the court.

About the Author

akAlistair Kinley is BLM’s Director of Policy & Government Affairs.

Alistair is responsible for BLM’s engagement with government departments and regulators on policy and public affairs issues and consultations affecting the firm and its customers. He coordinated BLM’s market-facing activities in connection with the Insurance Act 2015 and the consultations which preceded its publication and introduction in Parliament.

He is a member of the Civil Justice Council (CJC), a regular speaker and experienced commentator on legal and procedural reforms and was a contributing editor to the Law Society’s Litigation Funding Handbook (September 2014).

Leave a Reply