Neil joined Clyde & Co as a Partner in January 2016 with over 16 years experience in handling motor claims, the last 10 years of which have been spent in Defendant insurance work. During that time he has developed a market leading reputation for combating fraud, particularly in relation to alleged large loss and catastrophic claims, saving insurers millions of pounds in indemnity spend.
His successful prosecution of fraudulent claimants and their supporters for contempt of Court has helped shape the law in that area for the benefit of the wider insurance market. For many, Neil is often now the first port of call for strategic advice in the fight against fraud, including in the use of surveillance and social media, as well as for his expertise in handling mainstream claims.
相关经验
Some of Neil's notable cases include:-
Nield & Acromas Insurance Company Limited v Loveday (2011); Landmark contempt of Court decision which represents the first known case in which an immediate custodial sentence had been handed out for dishonesty in statements submitted to a County Court. The claimant was sentenced to 9 months in prison, his wife 6 months (suspended).
Lane & LV v Shah (2011) ; Dishonest Accountant who received an immediate 6 month custodial sentence for contempt. Her husband and daughter each received 3 month sentences. This was the first known County Court case of its type in which immediate custodial sentences were handed out to the accomplices of a fraudster.
Armstrong v Hoylake Cottage HT [2014]; Lady with a congenitally deformed hand injured the other hand in a liability admitted accident and claimed a substantial 6 figure sum for loss of earnings, care, aids and equipment. ADR, in various guises, failed and Neil ran the case to a 3 day trial in Liverpool, resulting in a finding of conscious exaggeration and an indemnity costs order.
Rehill v Rider Holdings Limited [2014] Court of Appeal; Having proven the injured claimant in a serious pedestrian v bus RTA was guilty of momentous fraud and 'reprehensible conduct', Neil challenged the findings on costs in the Court of Appeal. The case successfully expored the significance of offers, including withdrawn offers, in fraudulent cases, placing the focus on the knowledge of the fraudulent claimant at the time each genuine offer was made. The claimant was ordered to pay all the costs of the litigation, including the appeals.
