Car crash: Only £10,000 of £250,000 claim was found genuine
A barrister who a court found had been fundamentally dishonest in making a personal injury claim has been disbarred.
Claire Louise Thomas’ £250,000 claim was thrown out by His Honour Judge Harrison after a five-day trial in Cardiff 18 months ago.
The judge found: “I am driven to the conclusion that the defendants have established on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has not presented a truthful account of her symptoms, to the medical experts in this case and/or to those to whom reported the extent of the same following the accident.
“I am also satisfied that in so doing the claimant’s untruthfulness went to the heart of the claim, and as such I must conclude that she has been fundamentally dishonest. The law requires me therefore to dismiss her claim.”
Ms Thomas, 41, was called in 2008. She was not a practising barrister, although HHJ Harrison’s ruling noted that she had worked as both a judge’s and a barrister’s clerk. She is not to be confused with Clare Thomas, a practising barrister based in Manchester.
The full decision of the Bar disciplinary tribunal has not yet been published but the PI ruling was publicised at the time, with the symptoms Ms Thomas reported after the car accident in 2016 inconsistent with surveillance and social media evidence that showed she was significantly more mobile than she had claimed to both the Department of Work & Pensions and medico-legal experts.
The judge assessed the value of the claim that had been established as honest at £10,000. This sum was deducted from the costs payable by Ms Thomas.
A BSB spokesman said: “By dishonestly presenting information about her medical symptoms, including in a civil court case, Ms Thomas’ behaviour has fallen short of the high standards of integrity and honesty expected of those called to the Bar and the tribunal’s decision to disbar her reflects this.”
HHJ Harrison concluded his ruling by saying he had reached the decision “with a heavy heart”.
He explained: “Whilst it is not necessary for me to conclude whether she has a factitious disorder [a mental disorder where people deliberately falsifies symptoms] or whether she is a frank malingerer, I strongly suspect it is the former.
“To that end, and whilst it is not a defence to the allegation made, the contents of this judgment and the consequences need to be dealt with by the claimant’s representatives with the claimant with care, support and sensitivity.”
The tribunal’s decision is currently open to appeal.
Leave a Comment