PI Brief Update

Causation, credibility and fundamental dishonesty: Lessons from a contested Fast-Track personal injury trial - Calum Pakey, Solicitor, RTA, Express Solicitors

25/05/26. Personal injury claims, in which primary liability is no longer disputed, frequently turn on more nuanced issues of causation and credibility.

A case I worked on illustrates how allegations of fundamental dishonesty can arise from relatively common evidential inconsistencies and the potentially serious consequences had such allegations been established at trial.

The claim arose from a road traffic accident in January 2022, when the defendant moved off from a parked position and collided with the claimant’s vehicle. Although breach of duty was admitted, the defendant denied the accident caused the alleged injuries. The defendants further alleged that the claimant brought a claim which was fundamentally dishonest.

The claimant suffered a range of injuries, including neck and shoulder pain, a wrist injury, rib and abdominal pain, and psychological symptoms. However, the claimant’s evidence was not perfect. The defence relied on inconsistencies between claim notification forms, variations in the reporting of time off work, the later introduction of certain symptoms and limited medical attendance following the accident. There was also evidence of pre-existing issues affecting similar areas of the body.

On that basis, the defendant invited the court not only to reject the claim on causation grounds but to go further and make a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The distinction was critical. A failure to prove causation would limit or defeat the claim; a finding of fundamental dishonesty would engage section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, exposing the claimant to dismissal of the entire claim. The claimant would also be exposed to adverse costs consequences and the loss of qualified one-way costs shifting protection.

The court therefore undertook a careful, injury-by-injury analysis of causation. The claimant succeeded in establishing that the accident caused her wrist, neck, shoulder and psychological injuries, but failed to prove that her rib and abdominal symptoms were attributable to the collision. That finding was based on the limited medical evidence, inconsistencies in the records and the presence of pre-existing issues. The court was clear that the failure to establish those injuries was not a product of dishonesty, but of insufficient evidence.

During cross-examination at trial, the claimant’s intention was to be helpful to the court in answering the opposing barrister’s questions and explaining the inconsistencies in her case. In evidence, she provided explanations for the discrepancies, including the passage of time, the informal management of symptoms and confusion as to how certain injuries had been described. It was submitted by the claimant’s barrister that such inconsistencies were neither unusual nor indicative of dishonesty, but rather reflective of the realities of recalling events some years later.

The court accepted this submission in part. The claimant was found to be an honest and credible witness who had done her best to assist the court. The allegation of fundamental dishonesty was rejected. In doing so, the court recognised the important distinction between a witness whose evidence is imperfect and one who is deliberately untruthful.

The overall outcome was favourable to the claimant, who recovered damages exceeding their £6,000 Part 36 offer, thereby securing the usual uplifts and costs consequences.

This case highlights the defendants’ willingness to make allegations of fundamental dishonesty where inconsistencies arise. While such arguments will not succeed without clear evidence of deliberate untruthfulness, they significantly raise the stakes of litigation. Had the defendant succeeded, the claimant would have faced the loss of her entire award and potentially an adverse costs order.

This case also demonstrates that it is important to address inconsistencies proactively. They often form the foundation for allegations of fundamental dishonesty and, if left unexplained, can pose serious risks for claimants. However, where inconsistencies are confronted directly and explained in a clear and credible manner, they need not be detrimental to the claim. This case serves as a reminder that the line between an unsuccessful claim and a fundamentally dishonest one is not always sharply defined, but the consequences of crossing it can be severe.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/KonovalikovAndrey