A firm has failed to reclaim £300,000 in “wasted” legal fees following a judge’s ruling that a woman had been dishonest about her injuries sustained in a pier fall. The Welsh pier owner had sought to recover significant costs after the woman, Kirsty Williams-Henry, was found to have misled about her health conditions post the pier incident. Notably, the judge found that despite claiming severe injuries, she had been engaging in activities such as regular spa weekends, foreign holidays, concerts, and dining out at various restaurants.
Kirsty, a senior business analyst at Admiral Insurance, had originally sought £2.3m in damages from ABP, a major port operator in the UK, after suffering skull fractures and brain damage from the fall in 2018. However, her case took a turn when it was revealed that she had misrepresented the extent of her injuries.
Despite being found to have a brain injury, the judge determined that her dishonesty nullified any compensation she may have been entitled to. He concluded she would have been awarded £596,704 had she been truthful about the impact of her injuries. Following the dismissal of her claim, ABP took legal action against Kirsty’s solicitors, Hugh James, alleging negligence in pursuing a baseless case on her behalf.
The pier owner contended that the law firm disregarded evidence contradicting Kirsty’s claims of injury severity. They further accused Hugh James of upholding the case due to a ‘no win, no fee’ agreement, despite knowing of the inconsistencies in her statements. The judge ultimately rejected ABP’s bid to recoup the legal expenses but acknowledged discrepancies in how the case was handled regarding the woman’s activities and medical records.
Hugh James defended its actions, stating that it was reasonable to represent Kirsty throughout the prolonged legal battle as she maintained the validity of her claim. The firm argued that withdrawing representation prematurely would have disadvantaged her at trial. The judge concurred, citing the complexity of the case and the ongoing settlement negotiations as justifications for the firm’s continued support.
WalesOnline contacted Hugh James for comment on the judge’s critique but received a response reiterating their position as outlined in the judgment. The complex legal battle serves as a cautionary tale regarding the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings to avoid costly and protracted disputes.