EUI Ltd v Sultan (2017), QBD (O’Farrell J) 12th April 2017

The respondent had made a personal injury claim arising out of an alleged road traffic accident. The applicant was the insurer of the driver who was said to be at fault. Its position was that the accident did not occur as alleged, or at all, and that the respondent’s claim was fraudulent. It had obtained an engineer’s report which concluded that the damage to the two vehicles was not consistent with the respondent’s account.

The trial Judge had found that the claim was fraudulent. Committal proceedings were issued and the respondent admitted his contempt.

HELD:

The expert evidence suggested the accident had been deliberately staged and the respondent must have known that the witness statements were untrue. There was evidence of planning and collusion: the respondent had presented false medical and financial evidence in support of his claim.

In mitigation, it was noted that the respondent was a father of two, had admitted his contempt, had no previous convictions, had good character references, had not acted alone and was a carer for his two elderly parents. However, notwithstanding the fact that he had been assisted by others, he was the major participant in the fraud.

The starting point was 18 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 12 months on account of the admission of his contempt. The was then reduced again to 9 months on account of the respondent’s personal mitigation.

May 28, 2017 В· Editorial Team В· Comments Closed
Posted in: Cases