London Organising Committee of The Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog) v Sinfield: QBD 22 Jan 2018

The defendant had applied for the claimant’s claim against it to be sruck out under the 2015 Act, alleging a dishonest claim for expenses. It now appealed from rejection of that claim.
Held: THe appeaL succeeded: ‘The starting point is s 57(3). As I have explained, it follows from this provision that something more is required than the mere loss of damages to which the claimant is entitled to establish substantial injustice. Parliament has provided that the default position is that a fundamentally dishonest claimant should lose his damages in their entirety, even though ex hypothesi, by s 57(1), he is properly entitled to some damages. It would render superfluous s 57(3) if the mere loss of genuine damages could constitute substantial injustice. The judge made no findings capable of supporting a conclusion that if the whole claim was dismissed it would result in substantial injustice to Mr Sinfield Furthermore, the judge was wrong to characterise the gardening claim as peripheral. As I have explained, as originally presented, it was a very substantial part of the claim.’
‘Given the infinite variety of circumstances which might arise, I prefer not to try and be prescriptive as to what sort of facts might satisfy the test of substantial injustice. However, it seems to me plain that substantial injustice must mean more than the mere fact that the claimant will lose his damages for those heads of claim that are not tainted with dishonesty. That must be so because of s 57(3). Parliament plainly intended that sub-section to be punitive and to operate as a deterrent. It was enacted so that claimants who are tempted to dishonestly exaggerate their claims know that if they do, and they are discovered, the default position is that they will lose their entire damages. It seems to me that it would effectively neuter the effect of s 57(3) if dishonest claimants were able to retain their ‘honest’ damages by pleading substantial injustice on the basis of the loss of those damages per se. What will generally be required is some substantial injustice arising as a consequence of the loss of those damages’

Judges:

Jukian Knowles J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 51 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.603727