0370 270 6000

Molloy v Shell UK Limited, Court of Appeal

16 July 2001
The issues

Costs- Deliberate Exaggeration Of Injuries By The Claimant – Abuse of Civil Proceedings – Costs Consequences

The facts

The Claimant sued the Defendant for personal injuries. He worked as a scaffolder on an oil platform in the North Sea and fell on a ramp injuring his back. He claimed loss of earnings. He had attempted to mitigate by unsuccessfully re-training as a bus driver and a forklift truck driver.

Liability was admitted. A Payment Into Court of £20,000.00 was made. A schedule of loss claiming over £300,000.00 was served. Days before Trial Defendant discovered that Claimant had returned to the oil platform as a scaffolder and had worked there on a fairly regular basis for three years. The claim had been grossly and deliberately exaggerated. The award was less than the amount paid into Court
by the Defendant. The Judge ordered the Claimant to pay 75% of the Defendant’s costs.

The Defendant appealed.

The decision

The Judge was obliged under Civil Procedure Rules Part 44.35 to consider the Claimant’s conduct. The Court process had been abused. The Claimant had been grossly dishonest and given that the Payment Into Court had not been beaten the only way in which the Judge’s discretion should have been exercised was to award the Defendant all of its costs.

NB The Claimant was not represented and did not appear.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up