Fundamental dishonesty: Razumas v Ministry of Justice [2018] EWHC 215 (QB)

Tags

Further guidance on the application of section 57 (1)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Cockerill J. said,

‘I gratefully adopt the test set out by Julian Knowles J [in Sinfield see here] and ask myself first:
Did Mr Razumas act dishonestly in relation to the primary claim and/or a related claim?

To this the answer must be yes. He has one main claim, and the dishonesty went to one route to succeed on it in full.
[second]
Has he thus substantially affected the presentation of his case, either in respect of liability or quantum, in a way which potentially adversely affected the defendant in a significant way?

Again the answer must be yes. The argument which he advanced went to an entire factual section and pleaded occasion which would have entitled relief on the main claim. Thus the first part, fundamental dishonesty is made out.’

Note: Formatted for ease of reading. Matters in square brackets added.

 

Advertisements