Personal injury lawyers urge regulators to act on bogus fraud claims that ruin victims’ compensation hopes
Defendant lawyers are facing fierce criticism for what claimants’ advocates call a “dishonest abuse of dishonesty.” The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) is urging legal regulators to clamp down hard on defence solicitors who throw around fraud allegations with no proper basis—potentially devastating injured claimants.
In a scathing submission to the Legal Services Board’s consultation on ethics, APIL warned of a surge in unsubstantiated accusations of “fundamental dishonesty” being made against civil claimants. The allegations, often unsupported by clear evidence, are said to be weaponised by insurers and defence solicitors looking to escape liability.
Embed from Getty ImagesClaimants found fundamentally dishonest risk losing their right to any damages—even those unrelated to the alleged dishonesty—and face crushing costs bills. But APIL argues the legal system is worryingly one-sided: defence teams who make groundless fraud accusations walk away unpunished when their claims fall flat.
“There are no consequences for defendants who make unsubstantiated allegations of fraud against claimants,” said APIL president Matthew Tuff. “The rules are being utilised by some defendants as a cynical ploy to avoid paying compensation to honest injured victims of negligence.”
Tuff warns the practice is not just legally dangerous—it’s morally corrosive. Victims already battling injury and trauma face the additional stress of defending their honesty in court, often against well-resourced institutional defendants. The imbalance, APIL claims, is deliberate and tactical.
The organisation’s consultation response cited a 2024 case, Cullen v Henniker-Major, as a prime example. In that clinical negligence case, a delayed cancer diagnosis led to a claim, but defence lawyers accused the claimant of overstating her care needs. The court rejected the dishonesty allegation entirely, and APIL believes it reflects a wider trend.
“Institutional defendants,” said the group, “are increasingly prioritising loyalty to their clients over public trust and fairness, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals facing fixed recoverable costs.”
With defendants insulated from the consequences of baseless accusations, APIL is calling for urgent regulatory intervention. It wants a system where defence solicitors face “clear and severe” penalties when dishonesty allegations are proven to lack substance.
The current situation, Tuff argues, incentivises aggressive tactics: “It’s a deliberate strategy to financially and psychologically exhaust vulnerable injured people, who face having their cases dismissed and being held liable for the defendant’s costs as well as their own.”
Legal critics say that without stronger regulation, the threat of fundamental dishonesty will continue to hang over civil justice like a sword, one that cuts only one way.
So far, courts have offered limited protection. In one recent ruling, the Court of Appeal confirmed that defendants do not automatically face cost penalties when their dishonesty accusations fail. That ruling has only intensified concern among claimant lawyers, who say the balance of power is badly skewed.
As the debate over ethics and fairness in civil litigation rages on, APIL’s demands mark a sharp escalation. They’re not just asking for professional accountability—they’re calling out what they see as systemic exploitation by some of the country’s most powerful legal players.
