Claire Louise Thomas, a barrister called to the Bar in 2008, has been disbarred following a court ruling that found her fundamentally dishonest in pursuing a £250,000 personal injury claim.

As originally reported in Legal Futures, this case highlights the severe consequences of fundamental dishonesty and costs for legal professionals, emphasising the high standards of integrity required within the profession.

Recent disciplinary finding

Claire Louise Thomas had sought £250,000 in damages, but her claim was dismissed 18 months ago by His Honour Judge Harrison following a five-day trial in Cardiff.

The case dates back to 2016 when Claire Louise Thomas was involved in a road traffic accident where the other party, a van driver, admitted liability. Thomas alleged she had sustained soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders, and back, as well as a concussion. She further claimed to have developed secondary fibromyalgia syndrome with hemiplegic migraines—a chronic condition characterised by widespread pain, tenderness, and additional symptoms.

Thomas also reported psychological impacts, including flashbacks, travel anxiety, and low mood. She sought substantial damages for past and future loss of earnings, as well as compensation for past and future care and assistance.

In the case, the trial judge stated: “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 she 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 to the Bar in 2008 but was not practising. HHJ Harrison noted that she had previously worked as a clerk for judges and barristers. For the avoidance of doubt, she is unrelated to Clare Thomas, a practising barrister based in Manchester.

While the full decision of the Bar disciplinary tribunal has not been published, the personal injury ruling received attention at the time in early 2023. It emerged that surveillance and social media evidence contradicted Ms. Thomas’ claims of limited mobility following a 2016 car accident, revealing she was far more active than she had reported to the Department of Work & Pensions and medico-legal experts.

The judge valued the honest portion of her claim at £10,000, deducting this sum from the costs Ms. Thomas was ordered to pay as a consequence of the fundamental dishonesty finding.

Following handing down of judgment in the personal injury proceedings, the matter had been passed to the Bar Standards Board to investigate.  A spokesperson for the Bar Standards Board commented: “By dishonestly presenting information about her medical symptoms, including in a civil court case, Ms. Thomas’ behaviour fell short of the high standards of integrity and honesty expected of those called to the Bar. The tribunal’s decision to disbar her reflects this.”

HHJ Harrison acknowledged the gravity of the situation, stating: “Whilst it is not necessary for me to conclude whether she has a factitious disorder [a mental disorder involving falsification of symptoms] or 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 care, support, and sensitivity.”

At the time of writing, the tribunal’s decision remains open to appeal.

What is fundamental dishonesty?

The term fundamental dishonesty was introduced in April 2013 following amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the introduction of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS).  QOCS was introduced as a means of offsetting risks to genuine Claimants in bringing a claim against a Defendant in which, where they were unsuccessful, no adverse costs consequences would arise.  There was a concern however, that this could warrant the bringing of unmeritous claims, and a finding of fundamental dishonesty is a means of overriding the protection QOCS provides to a Claimant where they are found to have brought a wholly false claim.

Fundamental dishonesty is a term used to describe instances where a Claimant is found to be exaggerating, lying, or withholding relevant information in relation to a claim, to such an extensive degree that it goes to the root of the claim. If the Court determines, beyond reasonable doubt, that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest, it has the authority to dismiss the claim and issue a costs order against the claimant, unless doing so would result in “substantial injustice.”

For a claim to be deemed fundamentally dishonest, the court must be convinced that the dishonesty affected either the entirety of the claim or a significant portion of it. This ensures that such judgments are not made lightly.

Fundamental dishonesty and costs consequences

In April 2013, Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) was introduced for personal injury claims. Under QOCS, defendants are required to cover the legal costs of successful claimants. Additionally, defendants’ costs cannot be recovered, even if they successfully defend against a claim save for to the extent of any damages (and costs since updates to the CPR in 2023) are recovered by the claimant.

However, claimants may lose QOCS protection under certain circumstances. This can occur if their claim is struck out for lacking reasonable grounds, if they are found to be fundamentally dishonest.  Adverse consequences can still apply within the scope of QOCS, for instance if a claimant fails to obtain a better outcome than a defendant’s Part 36 offer, but the principle is that a claimant will not come out of any genuine legal proceedings with an overarching adverse costs liability.

Fundamentally dishonest claims are further addressed in Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which allows courts to dismiss an entire personal injury claim, including any genuine aspects, if the claimant is found to have been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the main claim or any related claim.

The court can issue a costs order against the claimant, making them liable for the defendant’s legal costs. These costs are enforceable, potentially putting the claimant at financial risk.

If the dishonesty involves fraudulent actions, claimants may face criminal proceedings, which could include fines or imprisonment. Legal professionals may also face disciplinary actions, such as being disbarred or struck off.

How can ARC Costs assist?

If a claim is determined to be fundamentally dishonest, costs can be claimed in full on a standard basis against the claimant, overriding the protection of QOCS under CPR 44.16. This can leave claimants liable for substantial legal costs and if such costs have not been summarily assessed at any final hearing, it is likely that a Bill of Costs will need to be drawn up for assessment purposes.

At ARC Costs, our experienced team specialises in all aspects of costs, including issues involving fundamental dishonesty, whether acting for the paying or receiving party. We are independent experts, meaning we may be instructed by a paying or receiving party.

For receiving parties, our skilled Costs Draftsmen and Costs Lawyers can prepare a detailed Bill of Costs, which is served on parties found liable for costs.

Within the Bill of Costs, the work completed is detailed item-by-item; therefore, the team require access to files and time records in order to prepare the document accurately. Once the Bill of Costs has been produced, the paying party are able to scrutinise the entries and figures. For that reason, it is vital that an experienced Draftsman prepares the Bill of Costs, ensuring that only recoverable items are included, defending it effectively during negotiations and ultimately maximising the recovery on the Bill. 

Alternatively, if a party has received a Bill of Costs after being found fundamentally dishonest, we can assist in disputing the amounts claimed therein. It is important to note in such cases, the final costs order may be accompanied by an order for costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis, but this does not mean that the costs claimed will be permitted as drafted.

In such cases where we represent the Paying Party, our team can prepare Points of Dispute to challenge the contents of the Bill and specific entries claimed, and provide strong legal arguments in response. With over 20 years of experience between our two lead Directors, our team of Costs Lawyers and negotiators bring extensive technical and legal expertise to various claims, including personal injury, judicial review, and commercial disputes.

For more information or to discuss your case, contact us at 01204 397302 or email info@arccosts.co.uk. Alternatively, you can submit a query through our contact form, and one of our experts will call you back to provide free initial advice.

Follow Us