Expert Witness Journal Issue 67 June/July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 51
Appropriate references to case law pertaining to
s.57 were contained within the skeleton arguments
along with a recital of the principles to be applied
to applications for summary judgment in EasyAir v
Opal Telecom [2009] EWHC (Ch) at para 15.
Discussion
There are a number of ways to secure a 昀椀nding of
fundamental dishonesty and summary judgment
is one means of securing an early 昀椀nding where
the evidence is su昀케ciently clear-cut. With court
backlogs and adjourned trials ongoing with no signs
of it abating, this is a cost and time-e昀케cient way of
securing the right outcome.
For all the reasons mentioned above, the court was
asked to enter summary judgment given that the
evidence was so compelling that there was no real
prospect of C resisting such a 昀椀nding even if the
matter had proceeded to trial.
Claire Laver, Head of Fraud, CSG, said,
“
The judge commented that this is an unusual
application, though unsurprisingly, there are
authorities stating that there is no bar to granting
such an application. He went on to say that very
considerable caution is required and that subject
to being satis昀椀ed that CPR 24.2 is met, there is no
impediment to the court granting the application
where dishonesty is alleged. In the judge’s view, C
had according to the usual meaning of the term,
acted dishonestly and had substantially a昀昀ected the
presentation of the case.
Collaboration between complex injury and fraud
lawyers to develop an appropriate strategy to
successfully defend this claim has borne out in an
early successful decision saving Intact Insurance
(formerly Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Limited)
£1m. The lengths that this claimant, his wife and
adult children went to in their attempt to defraud
Intact Insurance were audacious and well thought
out but Intact Insurance’s willingness to secure
surveillance evidence thwarted those attempts with
signi昀椀cant 昀椀nancial consequences for the claimant.”
The court granted the application, made a 昀椀nding
of fundamental dishonesty and made an interim
costs order against C in the sum of £150,000.
Mr David Machin MB ChB (Hons), FRCS (Tr & Orth)
Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic surgeon
Sub Specialist in Foot & Ankle Surgery
Mr Machin is a fellowship trained Trauma & Orthopaedic surgeon with a sub-specialist surgical practice in disorders of the foot & ankle.
He has been an NHS consultant since 2014 and during that time he has held the positions of Trauma Lead, Clinical Director of
Orthopaedics and Associate Medical Director.
His NHS practice is at the Countess of Chester Hospital. His private practice is in Chester and North Wales.
He treats all conditions in the foot and ankle, including: fractures, dislocations, sprains, soft tissue injury, arthritis, abnormal foot shape
(such as bunions), plantar fasciitis, sports injuries, and tendon problems.
He also has a general orthopaedic trauma practice in the NHS treating orthopaedic injuries bodywide.
Mr Machin has been an orthopaedic medicolegal expert since December 2013. Producing over 3700 personal injury and negligence
reports. He works with multiple solicitors nationwide.
He currently produces around 100 reports for negligence and personal injury each year, with around 50 of these reports for
serious/complex high value injuries. He accepts instruction from claimant or defendant.
Mr Machin welcomes instructions in the areas of:
•
•
•
•
•
Contact: Sandra Newnes
Foot & Ankle Negligence cases
Standard or complex Foot & Ankle cases
Standard Orthopaedic trauma cases body-wide
Serious Orthopaedic injuries
Soft tissue injuries to the spine
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Telephone: 07514 549528
Email: private.secretary@davidmachin.com
Alternate Email: davidmachin@doctors.net.uk
Website: www.davidmachin.com
The Grange Clinic, 1 Hoole Road, Chester,
Cheshire, CH2 3NQ
49
JUNE 2026
