Lies told in court "quite rightly" do not lead to penalties


A senior judge said:

“Lies are told in litigation every day up and down the country and quite rightly do not lead to a penalty being imposed in respect of them.”

Ward LJ was speaking at the Court of Appeal, giving judgment in a case where a claimant had greatly exaggerated her personal injury claim.

The court heard in Widlake v BAA that the claimant was employed as a security guard at an airport when she fell down a staircase because of a loose rider beneath the top step.

She claimed £150,000 for loss of earnings as a security guard for the rest of her life.

The Defendants carried out secret video surveillance, which “did not show any evidence of disability”.

The Judge said that Widlake had “deliberately concealed” her previous history of back pain from her medical experts in the hope of increasing the amount of compensation.

As a result, he awarded her only £3,500 for pain and suffering

At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Ward said: “In addition to looking at it in terms of costs consequences, the court is entitled in an appropriate case to say that the misconduct is so egregious that a penalty should be imposed upon the offending party.

“One can, therefore, deprive a party of costs by way of punitive sanction. Given the judge’s findings of dishonesty in this case, that may be appropriate here.

“I sound a word of caution: lies are told in litigation every day up and down the country and quite rightly do not lead to a penalty being imposed in respect of them.

“There is a considerable difference between a concocted claim and an exaggerated claim and judges must be astute to measure how reprehensible the conduct is.”

The words quite rightly have caused a storm. What are your views?