Martin Spencer J has had two judgments previously where the issues of fundamental dishonesty has arising. These cases are Richards & Anor v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) and Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service & Anor [2018] EWHC 1288 (QB). In both of these cases, the Claimants have been found to have been fundamentally dishonest, stripping them of their costs protection afforded by Qualified One-Way Cost Shifting (“QOCS”).
Some cases end up going to trial because the Defendant believes there is a real prospect of establishing that the Claimant is being fundamentally dishonest. I do not think that there is anyone within the personal injury that is not alive to the fact that fraud exists, but there are many occasions where Claimants are clearly being dragged to a trial, put through the cross examination and are clearly honest.
A common denominator is the incorrect information within the Claims Notification Form (‘CNF’), which leads to the Claimant having the contents of the CNF being used to controvert their credibility.
Claims Notification Form
For those not familiar with low-value personal injury claims, a CNF is the document produced in lieu of a Letter of Claim to be sent to an insurer or defendant when making a claim of less than £25,000. It is part of a process designed to make small claims faster, clearer, and cheaper. The CNF is completed online through the MOJ Portal and will provide the necessary information for a Defendant or insurer to understand the case against them.
This has also been adopted by the Official Injury Claims procedure, with a Small Claims Notification Form (‘SCNF’). Both the CNFs and SCNFs contain statements of truth.
Statement of Truth
The statement of truth is an important endorsement of the CNF, with both the CNFs and SCNFs adopting the Part 22 wording:-
I am the claimant’s legal representative. The claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form are true. The claimant understands that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement
The claimant believes that the facts stated in this Small Claim Notification form are true. The claimant understands that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a Statement of Truth without an honest belief in its truth.
I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign on their behalf.
Impact on credibility
Many Claimants are unaware that their CNFs are being submitted to the Defendant with errors that can be fatal to their credibility. Even if errors are later fixed, inconsistencies with later evidence can be used by the Defendant to question the Claimant’s credibility, which could lead to the claim being dismissed. Worst-case scenario, it can even go as far as to suggest that the Claimant is exaggerating or that the mistake was deliberate, which can lead to a finding of fundamental dishonesty.
In the case of Morris, Martin Spencer J reversed the trial judge’s decision to award damages despite the finding of the Claimants being ‘hopelessly inconsistent’. In respect of the CNFs, there were inconsistencies, such as medical attendances when there were none. The trial judge found that the CNFs were simplistic documents, but Martin Spencer J said the following:-
I interpose to make two comments about CNFs generally. Firstly, CNFs are important documents because not only are they the first notification of a claim to the potential defendant’s insurer in low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents where the damages sought are between £1,000 – £25,000 but also they will often be the basis for early settlement of the claim. Thus, a claim may go no further than the submission of a CNF and an offer of settlement based on it, which is accepted.
Secondly, and linked to the first point, the statement of truth is thus important as it means, or should mean, that the insurer can rely on the accuracy of the contents of the CNF in assessing the damages and any offer of compensation to be made. Where the statement of truth is signed by a claims manager on the claimants’ behalf, as here, the insurer trusts the claims manager and, through him or her, the firm of solicitors to have taken proper instructions and to have verified the accuracy of the contents of the document. It is worth remembering the provisions of the practice direction to Part 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules which states:
“3.8 Where a legal representative has signed a statement of truth, his signature will be taken by the court as a statement –
1) that the client on whose behalf he has signed and has authorised him to do so,
2) that before signing he had explained to the client that in signing the statement of truth he would be confirming the client’s belief that the facts stated in the document are true
3) that before signing he had informed the client of the possible consequences to the client if it should subsequently appear that the client did not have an honest belief in the truth of those facts.”
CPR 32.14, relating to false statements, provides that “proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.”
For the above reasons, I cannot associate myself with the comment made by HHJ Main QC at paragraph 42 of his judgment where, referring to CNFs, he said:
“I do not find them reliable documents. They are done shortly. They are all very summarised. They are simplistic documents which do not permit there to be details of clinical presentation that can be relied upon by a trial judge and I just ignore them.“
On the contrary, in my view they are important documents: they provide the basis for possible proceedings for contempt of court, as seen, and they provide valuable information at an early stage in the litigation process. Endorsed with a statement of truth, as they are, CNFs should be reliable documents and should be taken seriously.
A similar determination was made in Molodi, where in the CNF, the Claimant claimed that he had not taken time off work and did not seek medical attention. However, his evidence at trial was that he did take time off work and had told the medico-legal expert that he had attended his GP surgery.
The trial Judge found that some injury was suffered by Claimant and awarded damages. He went on to say the following in respect of the CNF:-
“I have hardly seen a Claim Notification Form in the last number of years where the detail of the accident as I found it on the evidence, often on objective evidence, is properly recorded in the Claims Notification Form. The process itself is often, because of its nature, littered with inaccuracy, partly because the forms are filled out by relatively lowly junior people in the office who are not qualified, partly because they do not take sufficient care over setting out the details and sometimes as they type it up they make mistakes. I see it in almost every case. The fact that there is no mention made of the right hand does not of itself concern me. The other injuries are broadly referred to.”
Martin Spencer J, allowing the Defendant’s appeal, said that the claim was riddle with inconsistencies, referring to both the points raised in the CNF but other evidence presented in the claim.
Discussion
An inconsistent CNF can be a powerful tool for a Defendant to argue fundamental dishonesty, as it offers early, documented evidence of the Claimant’s assertions bound by a statement of truth. Discrepancies between the CNF and later evidence can suggest exaggeration or lying. Courts recognise the CNF as the claimant’s initial and verified version of events, so inconsistencies may undermine credibility. However, discrepancies do not automatically prove dishonesty; errors can result from misunderstandings, clerical mistakes, or involvement of third parties like solicitors. While a flawed CNF can support a fundamental dishonesty argument, it must be considered alongside all evidence. With cases like Morris and Molodi, there were a significant number of inconsistencies beyond those presented in the CNF.
Inconsistencies between the CNF and medical report often prompt a Defendant to argue that causation has not been established, and in some cases, it may lead to allegations of fundamental dishonesty. An accurate CNF is crucial to minimising risks. Solicitors should consider that laypeople might not fully understand how symptoms are described or presented. Relying on a Claimant to complete the CNF could result in mischaracterisations, which might inadvertently steer the case toward a contentious trial.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.