Fundamental Dishonesty: When Winning Liability Isn’t Enough

Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Ltd and others 2025 EWHC 3173 (KB)

This case surrounds the Kings Bench Division dismissal of the applicant’s renewed application for permission to appeal against two orders, namely:

The applicant had previously succeeded in establishing liability for harassment and assault, however at the quantum trial, the judge found that she had been dishonest regarding three major matters:

The Court found that none of the applicant’s grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable, concluding that the trial judge had correctly applied the legal tests for fundamental dishonesty, properly directed himself on the burden of proof and provided adequate reasons for his findings. The court also issued a limited Civil Restraint Order against the applicant and her litigation friend due to their persistent submission of unmeritorious applications.

Facts of the case

The applicant originally successfully proved she had been subjected to harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and had been assaulted during a five-day period in 2010 when the respondent attempted to evict her from a property.

At the subsequent quantum trial, the applicant sought damages of approximately £2 million for continuing disability (particularly psychiatric injury), injury to feelings and loss of earnings.

The respondent argued that the applicant had been fundamentally dishonest in line with s.57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The judge found in favour of the respondent that the applicant had been dishonest as to the three facts stated above. As a consequence, the judge determined that the dishonesty was “fundamental” going to the root of her claim and accordingly dismissed the claim in its entirety, including the claim for damages for injury to feelings. The judge ordered that the applicant instead pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis with a payment of £25,000 on account and terminated the appointment of the applicant’s litigation friend.

Any permission to appeal against both the quantum trial order and the consequential order was refused.

The decision

The Court refused the applicant permission to appeal against both the quantum trial order and the consequential order, finding none of the grounds of appeal reasonably arguable. The court also refused permission to amend the grounds of appeal and declined to admit fresh evidence regarding the applicant’s marriage. Additionally, the court issued a limited Civil Restraint Order against both the applicant and her litigation friend, having found that they had made at least two applications that were totally without merit and had demonstrated “a complete lack of discipline” in their interactions with the Court. The court ordered the applicant to pay 75% of the respondent’s reasonable costs incurred since Sheldon J’s order refusing permission on the papers, to be assessed on a standard basis if not agreed, with an interim payment of £7,500 on account.