We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies. Read more...

Personal Injury: CA gives green light to exemplary damages in insurance fraud cases AXA Insurance UK plc v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd and others [2018] EWCA Civ 1330

Exemplary damages are a narrow exception to the rule that damages are compensatory, not punitive. This case is a paradigm example of when they are appropriate.

Axa found bailiffs at its door, instructed by solicitors to enforce default judgments under s.151 RTA amounting to £85,000. How had this happened?

The “solicitors” (the respondents) were not solicitors; the claimants, accidents, medico-legal expert and credit-hire company were all fictitious. Service of documents had consisted of sending bundles of junk mail by registered post, to create evidence of “service”.

Once the fraud was unraveled, Axa claimed the costs of defeating it (£25,000), and exemplary damages. At first instance, the costs were recovered, but the claim for exemplary damages was dismissed.

Exemplary damages are appropriate when:

“...the defendant’s conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff ...” Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129.

The court had interpreted this to say that exemplary damages were:

“available for the case where compensatory damages are inadequate to remove the wrongful gain achieved by the tort - where paying compensation in accordance with the normal principle would leave the tortfeasor ‘up on the deal’.”

In this case, the looked-for profit (the £85,000) would all come from Axa; and if successful, the fraudsters would have been liable to Axa for the full amount. There would have been, therefore, no “unreachable” profits, and so exemplary damages were inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.

The test was not whether there would have been unreachable profits had the fraud succeeded. Rather:

“What is necessary is that the tortious act must be done with guilty knowledge for the motive that the chances of economic advantage outweigh the chances of economic, or perhaps physical, penalty.” Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 1027

In other words, the hoped-for profit if successful must outweigh the potential cost if unsuccessful.

This was a paradigm case for exemplary damages. The cost at risk was far less than the hoped-for profit; the fraud was sophisticated and sustained; and there is a need to deter insurance fraudsters. Each respondent was ordered to pay exemplary damages of £20,000.

Insurance companies will note the Court of Appeal’s clear green light to claims for exemplary damages against insurance fraudsters.

 

David Willink / 1st Aug 2018


Disclaimer

The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.


Download as PDF


Back to News

 

Get In Touch

If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:


020 7797 8300


Alternatively you can  send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.

Share: