Civil/Insurance Fraud
Meredith has significant experience of claims in which fundamental dishonesty is in issue and has secured fundamental dishonesty findings for her clients.
Meredith has experience of acting in a wide range of cases concerning fundamental dishonesty and has experience of the following:
1) Drafting pleadings which allege fundamental dishonesty.
2) Drafting part 35 questions in claims where significant inconsistencies in the claimant’s reporting of symptoms, or a failure to report any symptoms, has been overlooked in the original expert report.
3) Making oral submissions and drafting written submissions on fundamental dishonesty and the disapplication of QOCs;
4) Drafting part 18 questions. This includes during the early stages of proceedings to clarify whether fundamental dishonesty ought to be alleged, and shortly before trial to address matters which were vague or omitted from a witness statement.
5) Defending applications made by claimants shortly before, or on the day of, trial to adduce additional, and previously undisclosed, evidence to rebut allegations of fundamental dishonesty.
6) Specific disclosure applications where it is believed that the claimant has failed to disclose documents relevant to the defendant’s case on fundamental dishonesty. This includes documents relating to previous accidents, unhelpful medical records, insurance documents showing contemporaneous accounts of the accident circumstances and financial and employment records which are inconsistent with loss of earnings claims.
Meredith also has experience of advising on whether fundamental dishonesty ought to be alleged. This includes advising on raising fundamental dishonesty at the pleadings stage but also where dishonesty markers are only identified shortly before trial, for example, as a result of the disclosure of medical records or witness evidence. Meredith also has experience of raising the issue of fundamental dishonesty at trial following matters arising during cross-examination.
Meredith’s experience of cases involving fundamental dishonesty means that she is used to making judgment calls on balancing:
- the amount of information the claimant needs to be given in advance to constitute a sufficient fundamental dishonesty warning;
- the extent to which specific issues need to be raised in advance, for example through specific disclosure or part 18, so that the claimant is tied to a particular position; and
- what ought properly to be reserved for cross-examination.
With respect to the types of cases Meredith has been instructed in, these include claims:
1) Involving tinnitus, whiplash or extensive psychological symptoms where there is no objective way of establishing the injury.
2) Where the claimant is alleging symptoms which are inconsistent with social media or surveillance evidence.
3) Where the claimant has made inconsistent reports to medical experts.
4) In which the accident mechanism is not consistent with the injuries described.
5) Where the claimant has an extensive history of previous claims.
6) Where there are concerns about special damages claims including care claims, loss of earnings and future damages.
Selected Cases
View full profile »Awards
- Hardwicke Entrance Award, Lincoln’s Inn (2017)
- Lord Denning Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn (2016)
- Oxford University Press Law Prize for highest graduating LLB student, University of York (2014)
News
- Mark Balysz KC, Mike Atkins, and Meredith Daniel secure non-custodial sentences for directors in trampoline park case involving hundreds of injuries
- Crown Office Chambers are delighted to welcome Meredith Daniel as our newest tenant, after successful completion of her pupillage
Articles
Qualifications
- BPTC, BPP Law School (2017)
- LLM, Distinction (1st in year), University of York (2015)
- LLB Law, First Class Honours with Distinction (1st in year), University of York (2011-2014)
