News

Law student in hopeless ‘crash for cash’ claim

By on
46

‘Wholly incredible and inconsistent’

A law student has received his first taste of (unwanted) courtroom action after being found to have deliberately caused a road traffic accident in order to make a fraudulent claim.

The aspiring lawyer, who was travelling with three other friends, claimed he was struck from behind by another vehicle while stationary at the junction to a roundabout. However, the driver of the other vehicle, an employee of Specsavers (irony alert!), alleged that the car ahead had “stopped for no apparent reason when moving onto the roundabout”, according to a recent case summary published online.

It continues: “She applied her brakes and came to a complete stop just behind their vehicle, before her foot slipped off her clutch resulting in her vehicle moving slowly forwards and making contact with the rear.”

Despite this seemingly minor collision, the law student, along with one of his friends, issued a claim against Specsavers insurers, Catlin Insurance Company. The case summary, produced by Clyde & Co, the international law firm which represented the insurers, goes on to list a catalogue of issues that eventually led its lawyers to believe, and later the courts, that the accident was caused deliberately.

Spoiler alert: the law student, who Legal Cheek isn’t naming, does not come out of this well.

Firstly, the wannabe lawyer immediately presented his pre-written details to the other driver, before then leaving the “scene in a hurry” when they suggested calling the police.

According to the law student’s witness statement, “the defendant was very apologetic after the accident” and, as a result, felt there was “no reason to call the police”. However, amid concerns later that the accident may have been caused deliberately, he issued a further statement questioning her decision not to call the police in the first place. “He seemed to be pre-empting what he knew the defendant was going to say in respect of the police”, according to the summary.

It also reveals that both the law student and his unnamed friend were involved in a separate accident in 2015. On that occasion, insurers repudiated the claims over concerns that this accident was also induced.

Things went from bad to worse for the law student when his latest claim went to trial last month at Manchester County Court.

Under cross-examination, he claimed to have no knowledge of the 2015 accident and could offer no explanation as to why his name had appeared on the original claim. This despite details of the previous incident appearing on the medical report from this latest accident.

Making matters worse, both claimants “were very inconsistent during cross-examination”, according to the summary, “most notably as to why they were driving around with four people in the car (neither of them could explain why they were all in the car or where they were going!).”

After giving evidence, and success looking increasingly unlikely, the law student offered to discontinue his claim on a ‘drop hands’ basis, meaning parties agree to bear their own costs. This was rejected. He then offered to pay £3,000 towards the insurers cost and return the £2,300 he received as an interim payment — again this was rejected. The summary speculates that both offers were made in a bid “to avoid a finding of dishonesty given that he is a student studying for a law degree”.

The judge eventually rejected the claimants’ “wholly incredible and inconsistent”, finding that the law student had “deliberately induced the accident”. The claims, described as “fundamentally dishonest”, were dismissed and the law student was ordered to repay the interim payment of £2,300.00, plus interest, and the defendant’s costs, assessed on the indemnity basis.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

46 Comments

Anonymous

Legal news.

(8)(0)

Anonymous

It’s wholly incredible that this is considered legal news.

(1)(17)

Anonymous

Law student website reports on legal judgment concerning law student.

(54)(4)

Anonymous

Mug.

(2)(10)

Anonymous

Cup.

Anonymous

Plate.

Anonymous

Atcha & Mallu v Catlin Insurance Company…

Anonymous

Oh this is a website for law students only.

(1)(4)

Anonymous

Atcha & Mallu v Catlin Insurance Company … … … [Alex frantically deleting whilst eating a very large pickle]

Anonymous

Atcha & Mallu v Catlin Insurance Company

(11)(0)

Anonymous

I don’t know why legal cheek are so worried about publishing the name of the case. It’s a bloody court case! Public record!!!

(27)(0)

Anonymous

Probably because so many readers of this site think that young lawyers who commit offences of dishonesty should not be excluded from the profession – i.e. there would be a backlash from people who think this shouldn’t be career-ending for the individual concerned.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Surely the student just won’t be able to pay their costs? Clyde & Co aren’t exactly going to be cheap.

(8)(1)

Anonymous

Top firm

(5)(7)

Anonymous

Shouldn’t be that much given the amount at stake.

(2)(1)

Anonymous

They will probably just bankrupt them.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The judgment is only £2,3000 and costs. I imagine the student could pay in instalments too.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Contempt proceedings?

(4)(1)

Anonymous

In practice this rarely happens.

(4)(1)

Anonymous

AGAIN: Atcha & Mallu v Catlin Insurance Company

(9)(0)

Anonymous

I replied to this comment earlier to say:

“Just doesn’t happen that often in practice”

However Legal Cheek decided to remove it? Bizarre.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

Because it’s got rascist undertones. Don’t deny it.

(4)(3)

Anonymous

AND it didn’t sufficiently support the abolition of abortion.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

And was marginally transphobic.

Anonymous

Why has the person involved not been identified? This is relevant and proportionate in an instance where a party has not only not succeeded in it’s claim, but actually been found to be fundamentally dishonest.

(16)(0)

Anonymous

Atcha & Mallu v Catlin Insurance Company

(14)(0)

Anonymous

Atcha & Mallu v Catlin Insurance Company……. la la la la

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Atcha & Mallu v Catlin Insurance Company … … … [Alex frantically deleting whilst eating sandwich]

(3)(0)

Anonymous

NO DEAL

NO DEAL

NO DEAL

Cha cha cha

(4)(12)

Doc Junker

How about you drink some drain unblocker, it’s actually really good for you.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Well, that’s him fucked on the SRA’s character and suitability assessment.

(28)(0)

Anonymous

What a fucking idiot.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

‘… while sat at a roundabout’

SITTING*

(7)(0)

Anonymous

YES! THANK YOU! Finally another educated human being has noticed the embarrassing, and quite frankly abhorrent, standards that LC ‘journalists’ hold themselves to.

(7)(0)

Anonymous

Did you also click the Clyde & Co link to find that the piece had not been written by two of their solicitors, but had been “authored”?

(1)(1)

Anonymous

Why do you automatically assume that this is the case?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Not exactly criminal masterminds.
This dishonesty finding means that they will fail the SRA Character and Suitability test and therefore will never be able to qualify as solicitors. I hope the insurance company makes a police report.

(2)(0)

The case is called...

Atcha and Mallu v. Catlin Insurance Company

(3)(0)

David

Don’t f*ck with insurers lol

(1)(0)

Anonymous

DDD?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You’d feel it the rest of your life bb

(1)(0)

Anonymous

LLL

(0)(0)

Confused?

Legal Cheek says the fundamental dishonesty claims were dismissed.

C&Co’s headline: Clyde & Co has secured a finding of fundamental dishonesty

Which statement is true?

(1)(1)

Anonymous

Ooh, I wonder. Let me see. Whose account do I prefer? The illiterate ramblings of some pseudo-journalists or the people who ran the case for one of the biggest PI practices in the land?

(3)(0)

Anonymous

I think it means the claims (which were described as “fundamentally dishonest”) were dismissed.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Just another unsuspecting Norton Rose employee bumping their way around the country. Pour one out.

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories