Kerry Underwood


with 8 comments

In Trehan v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd (unreported), 3 October 2017, Nottingham County Court

a firm of solicitors, deceived by a fraudster into pursuing a fraudulent personal injury claim, was ordered to pay all the defendant insurer’s costs, and the costs of an application by the person whose name was fraudulently used as claimant, under the court’s section 51 wasted costs jurisdiction.

The fraudster, the director of a claims referral company, was also jointly and severally ordered to pay costs under the non-party costs jurisdiction.

The claim had been made without the claimant’s knowledge or authority.

The director deceived the solicitors by forging the claimant’s signature on a number of documents, but the solicitors had also behaved reprehensibly by failing to conduct basic client checks and by dating letters incorrectly to hide non-compliance with court rules.

The judge said that, in terms of the professional standards required of a solicitors’ practice, their conduct was appalling, and he refused the solicitors’ claim for indemnification from fraudster.

As between the solicitors and the fraudster, the judge apportioned costs one third to the solicitors and two thirds to the fraudster.


Written by kerryunderwood

October 13, 2017 at 8:39 am

Posted in Uncategorized

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. name and shame ……

  2. Kerry
    Do you know if LV are getting a transcript of this? Litigated example are rare and the judicial analysis would be useful to all, I suspect.


    October 13, 2017 at 8:51 am

    • Colm
      Don’t know – but I would guess so and I am trying to obtain more details from the solicitors for Liverpool Victoria.


      October 13, 2017 at 10:00 am

  3. Thanks. Need to check to be 100%, but thank you for this.


    October 13, 2017 at 11:46 am

  4. Kerry, How will the firm of solicitors pay 1/3 of the costs when its been closed down by SRA? Will the directors have to pay personally as they paid back ‘personally’ the council’s grant? Also, the fraudster’s company has also been closed long ago.

    Jag uar

    October 13, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    • Have not seen full judgment. A section 51 order can be against anyone and in the case of a lawyer is normally against the lawyer personally, but I do not know if that was the case here.



      October 13, 2017 at 3:35 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: