Cases of Note
Meadows v La Tasca
Harry East appears for Respondent in Fundamental Dishonesty Appeal
Margaret Meadows v La Tasca Resturants Ltd  EW Misc B28 (CC)
The previous court had given permission for costs protection to be removed after the Claimant’s Occupiers Liability claim was dismissed. The Court removed the protection on account of the number of inconsistencies and peculiarities contained within the Claimant’s evidence.
These included differing accounts of their injuries between those contained in their medical report, reported by their witness and claimed by the Claimant at trial; differing recollections of the aftermath of the accident between the claimant and their witness and differing recollections of the accident itself between the claimant and their witness. The gross effect of which lead the Judge to conclude not only had the accident not happened in the way described by the claimant but that it did not happen at all.
The Appellants appealed on two grounds; first, that the District Judge was wrong to conclude that the Claimant was fundamentally dishonest and second, that the learned Judge had erred in his discretion in removing the QWOCS protection in this case
HHJ Hodge found for the Appellant solely on the basis that the Learned Judge in the lower court had gone too far when removing the QWOCS protection. Although there were a number of inconsistencies which clearly prohibited the Court from finding that the Claimant had discharged their burden of proof, the cumulative effect of those inconsistencies was not so great that the a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty could properly be found.
Other Cases Link