“Fundamental Dishonesty Cuts Both Ways” - Written by John Lloyd-Jones, Employer and Public Liability Department

John Lloyd-Jones recently settled a case for a roofer who was not supplied sufficient crawl boards to traverse a roof and lacerated his leg on a jagged part of the roof. He subsequently required hospital attendance. The Defendant denied that there had been any accident at all, but in any event, they denied insufficient equipment had been provided.

An important part of the case was credibility as our client stated that he had asked for further crawl boards which was denied by the Director of the Defendant’s company. Our client’s evidence stated that there were conversations with the Director regarding provision of further crawl boards, which was refuted in the Defendant’s evidence.

The Defendant made great effort in the witness evidence to undermine the client’s credibility, stating he had held a works van to ransom for payment of outstanding work and he was prosecuted for drink driving whilst in possession of this van. The evidence recounted a report from a member of the public that an alcohol bottle had been thrown out of a bottle on the motorway!

The client’s instructions were that he was prosecuted for drink driving but this was due to a diabetes condition he found about after the prosecution. This meant the alcohol he had in his system from the day before disproportionately affected him.

One issue that the Defendant had was that they stated a health and safety manager who had left the Defendant’s employment was reliable, whereas the client stated he had been dismissed (seemingly on the quiet) for suspected fraudulent activity.

The Defendant submitted that they would seek a finding of fundamental dishonesty at trial against our client. A Request for Further Information was sent regarding the Defendant’s health and safety manager, querying his dismissal, and the Defendant settled the claim rather than proceeding to trial.

Although there were some concerning features of the case it ultimately ended up with a successful result because we challenged the Defendant’s credibility (which should always be done robustly if possible) and did not allow the client to be bullied out of the claim by way of the Defendant’s smear tactics which effectively amounted to Bullying.

This a case which reminds us that Defendant’s will, and often do, resort to mud-throwing and their witness evidence can be challenged in respect of credibility just as much as a Claimant’s; obtaining good, clear witness evidence from the client is of paramount importance in these cases.