medical experts saw the videos, they
realised that Mrs Fari had misled them
and prepared a revised report stating
that the claimant had significantly
exaggerated her disability.
Application to Strike out
The local authority applied to the Court
in October 2012, arguing that Mrs Fari’s
dishonesty was so wide that her claim
should be struck out.
Following Summers –v- Fairclough
Homes Ltd [2012], (In short, the
Supreme Court considered the question
of whether a claimant lose the right
to a genuine claim through having
fraudulently exaggerated the extent of
it? They decided that it was theoretically
possible, but only in limited and
exceptional circumstances.) the Court
considered that it now had the power
to strike out a statement of case on the
basis that it was an abuse of the Court’s
power, even when the claimant was in
principle entitled to damages. (The Court
had also assessed the true value of the
claim at only £1,500). That power was to
be exercised only where it was just and
proportionate to do so. Here, it was. The
only appropriate order in this case was
to strike out the claim in its entirety.
As the local authority had previously
indicated that they would pursue
contempt of Court proceedings, the
Judge transferred the matter to the High
Court, commenting that it would take a
few committals for litigants in personal
injury claims to realise that such an
approach would not be tolerated.
Committal proceedings
In January 2013, the local authority
applied to the High Court to bring
committal proceedings against both
Mrs Fari and her husband, who in turn,
argued that the application should be
refused. They denied the allegations and
stated that the video recordings were not
representative of her disabilities.
The Court considered the history
of the litigation, the remarkable
difference between Mrs Fari’s account
of her disabilities and what the videos
apparently showed, the huge difference
between the true value of the claim and
what she had sought and established
that there was a strong prima facie case.
Despite Mrs Fari having lost all of her
claim when it was struck out, being
held liable for costs and both her and
her husband suffering embarrassing
negative publicity; there was a strong
public interest in pursuing false claims
and for them to be investigated by the
Court. In the circumstances, committal
proceedings were a proportionate
course for the Court to take and the
application was granted.
Contempt of Court
The Court considered the charges of
contempt against Mrs Fari and her
husband in October 2013. In her case,
the charges related to signing a witness
statement and schedules of loss which
contained false statements as to the
extent of her injuries and disability
and for deliberately exaggerating the
extent of those symptoms to medical
experts. Her husband was charged with
dishonestly assisting her and for making
similar false statements, especially in
respect of care.
Mrs Fari, who was illiterate, again denied
contempt and blamed her solicitors by
saying that she had relied on their advice
and had signed her witness statement
and the schedules of loss – which she
admitted contained false statements –
without knowing their full contents. In
addition, she had wanted to settle for
less than £750,000, but her solicitors
had encouraged her to carry on as her
claim was worth more. Apparently, the
medical experts had also misunderstood
what she was saying. She meant to
say that she only suffered increased
disability for around four or five months
and not that she was still suffering as a
result of the accident.
Her husband denied supporting his
wife in exaggerating any injuries. He
claimed tha t he had signed the witness
statement, which he also admitted
contained false assertions, but without
reading it and not knowing what it was.
The Judgment is useful to consider, as it
neatly summarises the exaggerated and
fraudulent behaviour of both and acts as a
warning before signing a statement of truth:
w
Although Mrs Fari could not read,
she was informed of the contents
of the schedules of loss and could
not argue that she did not know
what her claim consisted of. As she
was the one who had given
instructions, it was safe and proper
to infer that the false statements in
the schedules, which had been
verified by statements of truth,
came from her. Contempt of Court
was proved against her in that
regard.
e could the Court accept that
Neither
Mrs Fari knew nothing of the
contents of her witness statement,
as again it had been prepared
on the basis of her instructions and
accurately reflected what she had
said. By verifying evidence that
she knew to be false in her witness
statement with a statement of truth,
she had committed contempt
of Court. As for her husband, it
was impossible to accept that
he did not know that he was
signing a witness statement, or
that he was unaware of its
contents. He was guilty of contempt
in signing the document when he
knew that it contained false
assertions of fact.
The application was granted but
sentencing was adjourned.
Sentencing
q The Court decided that there was
a serious and deliberate attempt
by Mrs Fari to give the impression
to the medical experts, both in
her physical presentation and
in what she said that she was
more disabled than she
actually was as a result of the
accident. It was impossible to
reconcile the information given to
experts with the video evidence. It
was not possible that all the
experts had misunderstood Mrs
Fari as saying that her mobility and
disability continued to be affected.
Her husband was complicit in his
wife’s false presentation and
supported it. This clearly
interfered with the administration
of justice. Contempt of Court was
proven against both of them.
On 8 November 2013, Mrs Fari and her
husband were sentenced for contempt
of Court.
Mrs Fari was given the minimum
possible sentence of three months’
imprisonment, which took into account
that no damages had been paid out as a
result of her fraud and that she had been
in the media spotlight, which was part of
the punishment for such conduct.
Mr Fari had foolishly allowed himself
to be involved in his wife’s deceit and
had played his part in the pretence to
help inflate her claim, one which was
sufficiently serious to justify a sentence
of two months’ imprisonment, suspended
for 12 months to enable him to look after
the family while Mrs Fari was in prison.
The couple, who were legally aided,
were also ordered to pay £100,000 in
costs.
By Michael Mulcare
79