The judge said Paul Wainwright exemplified “professionalism, courtesy and sensitivity” in his handling of a dishonest claim
Birmingham-based solicitor Paul Wainwright got respect from UK High Court Justice Constable for his conduct in a clinical negligence case that involved a dishonest claim, reported the Law Society Gazette.
The judge said that Wainwright exemplified “professionalism, courtesy and sensitivity… of which the legal profession should be proud”.
The clinical negligence claim was filed by Sven Raymond Bogmer against Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust in October 2017. He accused the trust of negligent medical treatment, resulting in “'significant injury to his right arm” that prevented him from performing daily activities.
However, video surveillance footage obtained in January 2020 revealed that Bogmer was able to walk his dog, wash his car and do his shopping, among other activities that required the normal use of his right hand. The High Court was told that Bogmer did not display discomfort while performing these activities as per the footage.
Bogmer argued that the activities in question weren’t significantly taxing on his right arm, and said that he had “good days and bad days” in a statement published by the Gazette.
The NHS Trust made a drop hands offer that Bogmer accepted to settle the claim in January 2021. But in September 2022, the trust moved forward with an application to bring committal proceedings, which encountered a delay of 20 months before progressing.
Wainwright, who leads the counter fraud and intelligence team at Birmingham law firm Browne Jacobson, communicated with Bogmer and his wife leading up to the committal hearing, acting “quite properly and with a great deal of sensitivity”, Constable said. Last month, Wainwright talked to Bogmer’s wife for his choice to be absent from the trial for contempt.
The judge found Bogmer in contempt of court for his dishonest claim, saying that in his judgment that “to the extent any of the representations of loss of function and deterioration were accurate (which I do not accept), Mr Bogmer in any event falsely, and dishonestly, represented that the symptoms he said he experienced and the associated impacts were caused by the…surgery, when (to the extent they existed at all) they predated the surgery and were unrelated to it”. He concluded that Bogmer had made his claims “with the deliberate intention of deceiving the experts and in due course the court”.
Constable lauded Wainwright for his professionalism “in dealing with difficult matters of this nature with a litigant in person”.
The judgment was published on Monday.
