Latest Keoghs Insight

JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundations Trust [2017] EWHC 1245 (QB)

Client Alerts||30/10/2017

Fourteenth Edition of the Judicial College’s Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases

Client Alerts||15/09/2017

Personal Injury Discount Rate

Client Alerts||08/09/2017

Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 to come into force in October 2017

Client Alerts||23/08/2017

Costs budget exaggeration is misconduct

Client Alerts||17/08/2017

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

Lord Justice Jackson's review into Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Client Alerts||01/08/2017

Sentencing guidelines: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea – update

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Minibus claims worth over £100,000 stopped dead in their tracks as Keoghs and Mulsanne Insurance prove fundamental dishonesty

News And Events||20/11/2017

Keoghs IT team celebrate double award win

News And Events||17/11/2017

Keoghs unveils first true AI insurance lawyer

News And Events||07/11/2017

Expansion continues for Keoghs with launch of Marine, Ports and Offshore team

News And Events||03/11/2017

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

News And Events||20/10/2017

Keoghs IT team recognised in prestigious awards

News And Events||19/10/2017

Disputed causation leaves claimants paying the price

News And Events||17/10/2017

Keoghs announce 20 promotions and four new appointments

News And Events||31/08/2017

The Meaning of “Accidental Damage”


Is an approved budget the starting point for a payment on account of costs?


The Discount Rate - Time to Draw the Line?


Out of your Control: The expanding limits of vicarious liability - Natasha Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council


Keoghs Launches Online Ogden Multiplier Calculator


A new way of life? Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited)


Driver disqualification and the case for exceptional hardship


Health and Safety Executive FFI invoices – new panel, same challenges


Credit Hire Aware 12


Costs Aware Issue 3


Property Aware 5


Credit Hire Aware 11


Fraud Aware 5


Costs Aware 2


Disease Aware 8


Credit Hire Aware 10


Keoghs Insight

We keep you up-to-date on emerging market issues and their impact on the insurance sector, through a variety of publications, events and our leading market initiatives.


Gemma Wilkinson

The case for exclusion


In our latest fraud rings blog, Gemma Wilkinson examines a recent Court of Appeal case and asks when, if ever, it is appropriate for a party to be excluded from their trial whilst another party gives evidence.

The original trial

In our example case, Keoghs were instructed by an insurer to defend an alleged road traffic accident. The policyholder was alleged to have reversed his vehicle into two unattended motorcycles which resulted in the motorcycle owners pursuing claims for vehicle damage, hire, storage and recovery.  

The insurer had concerns that the collision was staged, based on the fact that the claimants and policyholder could be associated with the same address and there were numerous inconsistencies in the claimants’ evidence.  As a result, the insurer sought to defend the matter all the way to trial.

Due to these inconsistencies, the counsel for the insurer made submissions at the start of the trial that one claimant should be excluded from the court whilst the other claimant gave evidence.  Despite some objection from the claimants’ counsel, the trial judge was in agreement and excluded one claimant whilst the other gave evidence.  

During cross-examination further inconsistencies were unearthed which resulted in the claimants’ claims being dismissed on the basis that they had not proven their claims.  A further finding that the claims were fraudulent was then made. 

The appeal

Following the trial, the claimants appealed the decision. This appeal was on a number of grounds, however the most contentious issue was whether the claimants’ exclusion from court had rendered the trial unfair contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Having looked at the facts of the individual case, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge should not have excluded the claimants as she did. The one fundamental problem was that the judge had not given any weight to the claimant’s entitlement to be present throughout the trial.

Furthermore it was found that her reasoning for the exclusion was sparse, giving little indication as to how she considered the exclusion would assist in determining the validity of the claim before her.  

The Court of Appeal held that it was extremely difficult to contemplate there being any sufficient reason for taking this course of action in such a case.  At the very least, it was likely to leave the excluded claimant with a sense of injustice and it risked the entire trial being impugned on the basis that the exclusion had rendered it unfair.  

However, despite confirming this had been the wrong course of action to take, the Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the exclusion of one claimant was automatically fatal to the entire trial, suggesting that the fairness of the trial depended upon the proceedings as a whole.

As both claimants had been represented by the same counsel throughout and the excluded claimant had only missed one element of the trial, the Court of Appeal held that there had still been a fair trial.


In this appeal the claimants were still found to have not proven their claims, as the Court of Appeal’s observations did not necessitate any alteration of the trial judge’s order.

Effectively the Court was not persuaded to hold that, for a party to have a fair trial, there is an absolute requirement that he or she has the opportunity to be present throughout the entirety of the hearing.   

Nevertheless, they were satisfied that the starting point must always be that a party is entitled to be present throughout the hearing of a civil trial.  In fact, the Court of Appeal confirmed they could see very few, if any, circumstances in which it would be appropriate to exclude a party from court against their will.

As a learning point it is always worth bearing in mind that a claimant has the right to refuse removal from their own trial whilst others give evidence. However, the option is available for voluntary exclusion, should it be requested.

For more information please contact:
Gemma Wilkinson
Fee Earner Assistant
T: 01204 678822