False Lawyer Claim Leads to Dishonesty Finding
20 October 2025
Carpenters Group have secured a finding of fundamental dishonesty against a claimant who falsely claimed to be a lawyer.
In what was an unusual twist to a relatively routine RTA, the Claimant had been videoed at the scene telling the other driver involved in the collision that she had to co-operate with him as he was a lawyer. The Claimant had been pressed to provide evidence of his legal qualifications during the litigation, which had failed to do, but then from the witness box and under cross-examination, he admitted that his bold assertion at the roadside had in fact been a lie.
The Claimant alleged that our Insurer client’s policyholder had pulled out of a junction into his path. However, this was disputed, with the insured maintaining that the collision occurred after she had already pulled away from the junction and established herself on the main road.
The judge said that not only had the Claimant admitted lying to the Defendant’s insurer, but that this behaviour had continued throughout, notably in the evidence he had given in relation to the time he had taken off work, which had ranged from one day to one month. It was found that this wholly inconsistent evidence represented a pattern of repeated behaviour that had continued throughout the lifecycle of his case. When giving evidence from the witness box, the judge concluded that the Claimant was simply giving answers which best suited him at any particular moment.
Not only was the whole claim dismissed, which included claims for personal injury and credit hire, the Claimant was ordered to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs as well as re-pay an interim payment of over £4,000.
In making that order the judge said that there must be a deterrent where claims are fundamentally dishonest.
We were fortunate in this case that our client’s policyholder was robust enough to maintain her position in the face of the lie and her evidence at trial, in contrast to that of the Claimant, was found to be highly credible.
The case represents further success for our Credit Hire team and a significant saving for our client. Whilst s.57 and accusations of fundamental dishonesty should not be made without appropriate evidence, where, as in this case, there is a clear indication of wrong-doing our teams will adopt a robust and forthright approach in order to weed out fraud and ensure that dishonest claimants do not make a profit on the backs of innocent motorists.
