Henry Vanderpump defeated a fundamental dishonesty defence and secured a £137,000 judgment
Henry Vanderpump defeated a fundamental dishonesty defence and secured a £137,000 judgment for the Claimant, instructed by Michael Corrigan at Farleys. Lancashire County Council relied on days of surveillance footage, evidence of holidays to Mexico and alleged inconsistent reporting to the DWP by the injured Claimant.
The judgment of HHJ O’Brien is attached. She gives guidance on how to address inconsistencies in reporting to treating doctors and medicolegal experts. In the judgment, she says:
Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm). What does that say? Human memory is fallible. We all believe our memories to be more faithful than they actually are. Memories are fluid; they are constantly rewritten whenever they are retrieved. Memories are generally revised to make them more consistent with our present beliefs and even the process of preparing for a trial has considerable interference with memory. The key point from Gestmin is that just because a witness is honest and has confidence in his or her recollection, that does not mean that their recollection is accurate. Of course the counter side of that is just because a witness cannot remember some historic details, that does not mean that they are dishonest.
The judgment is a cautionary tale of a Defendant who placed too much reliance on minor inconsistencies in the evidence and failed to look at the overall picture. The status of DWP benefit claims as evidence of dishonesty is discussed. The Judge accepted these were collateral to the civil claim.
The case has been reported on Westlaw (paywall applies).
