0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Smith v Serendipity Holdings Ltd, Cardiff County Court, 18 March 2009

30 March 2009
The issues

Leisure claims – costs – conduct – indemnity costs – exaggeration.

The facts

The Claimant alleged that when attending a leisure park He paid £1.00 to take part in a penalty kicking attraction. He alleges that when he went to kick the ball he fell and injured himself and that the injury was caused because he was standing on Astroturf which was went and slippery. He brought a claim for damages against the Defendant. The Defendant’s evidence was to the effect that the Claimant would have been standing on a coconut mat and not Astroturf and that the floor and the mat were not wet. There was an issue as to when the accident occurred. The Claimant’s case was that he had injured his upper right forearm and bruised his buttocks. He subsequently told his orthopaedic surgeon that he had injured his left elbow and that he had had to take time off work. He subsequently claimed that he had been off work for 4 months. The Defendant disputed this and claimed that the Claimant had exaggerated his injuries.

The decision

The Defendant’s evidence was cogent. There was no factual evidence that was reliable upon which the Claimant’s case could succeed. Whilst the Claimant had undoubtedly fallen on the 29th October 2005 and injured his right arm and buttock, he had subsequently exaggerated his injuries. It was not true that he had had to take a substantial amount of time off work. He had questioned whether he would ever be able to work again, which had to have been an exaggeration on the basis of the medical evidence.

The Claimant had exaggerated his claim to the doctors, the Defendant and the Court and had put the Defendant to greater cost than they would have incurred if it had been the modest claim it in truth was. That factor took the case out of the ordinary and justified the Court in exercising its discretion pursuant to CPR 44.3 in relation to the amount and type of costs to be awarded. Exercising that discretion the Court would order that costs be paid on an indemnity basis.

For further information with regard to this case please contact Marie Macfarlane (telephone number: +44 (0)1392 288311 or email mm@vpinsurance.net).

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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