20 June 2017
The recent Sheriff Court decision from Forfar Sheriff Court in PA v RK & UK Insurance Limited T/A Direct Line [2017] SC FOR 6, provides a welcome example of the Court taking a firm stance against claims in which fraud is suspected.
PA concerned an allegation of a fraud arising from a staged road traffic accident. The Pursuer raised proceedings in which the Defender did not enter an appearance.
However, his insurers did enter process as Party Minuters to protect their interests as his motor insurers. In PA, the Defender accepted responsibility for the accident, claiming to have pulled out from a side junction and failing to see the Pursuer’s vehicle due to foggy conditions. Despite not having entered the action, he was called as a witness for the Pursuer. The parties claimed not to have known each other prior to the accident. However, at proof the Party Minuters produced photographs, obtained from the Defender’s Facebook page, showing that the Pursuer had in fact attended the Defender’s wedding four months prior to the accident.
The Pursuer then accepted that he had attended the wedding, but still claiming he did not know whose wedding it was and it was a pure coincidence that the groom just so happened to be the Defender in this case. The Defender also maintained he had not met the Pursuer prior to the accident and could not recollect him attending his wedding. He also admitted that he had the Pursuer’s telephone number stored on his mobile phone, which he subsequently deleted on the morning he was due to give evidence at Court in an effort to distance himself from the events.
In light of the above, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the Sheriff did not consider either the Pursuer or the Defender to be credible or reliable witnesses. In addition, the Sheriff considered conflicting engineering evidence from experts for both the Pursuer and the Party Minuters. He doubted whether the accident really occurred as alleged by the parties. It followed therefore that the Pursuer had failed to prove his case. Decree of Absolvitor was granted in the Defender’s favour and expenses were awarded in the Party Minuter’s favour.
The Sheriff also requested that a copy of his judgment be sent to the Procurator Fiscal as the circumstances of the case gave rise at least to the suggestion that an attempt has been made to obtain compensation by means of deception.
It is worth noting, however, that the Sheriff did not explicitly make a finding that the parties involved had made a fraudulent claim. It is not known whether criminal proceedings will be taken against either the Pursuer or the Defender. However, the decision is a welcome victory in the continued battle against fraudulent claims.
Contact:
 |
|
Osman Khan |