Day 172, week 36: what’s it all about?

“What’s it all about BabyB?  What’s it all about?”

Those were the words of UpTights as I entered her room this morning.  She was poring over a lever arch file on a case I’d already worked on in the past.  It was the one in which our client had knocked over an old lady on a zebra crossing and the insurer was trying to get off paying her any compensation at all by pursuing the client’s spurious claim that he blacked out.  Seems the “tame” neurologist’s report has come back saying that in his opinion this is the most likely explanation for the accident.

“Why do we dedicate our lives to this BabyB?  Why?”

“Search me UpTights.  I kind of figure that you work to pay for the plastic surgery and health spas that you think will reduce the visible effects of your stressful job.  You work to be able to afford to look like you don’t work.  You climb on board your treadmill until it’s going so fast that you can’t jump off.  You tell me, UpTights.  Am I right?”

That’s perhaps what I should have said but instead what came out was,

“We search for the truth UpTights.  A noble endeavour.”

To which she answered,

“Yes, BabyB.  You’re right of course.”

June 5, 2007 · Tim Kevan · 3 Comments
Posted in: Uncategorized

3 Responses

  1. Anonymous - June 5, 2007

    An excellent post
    Keep up the good work

  2. privileged - June 6, 2007

    I am representing a Claimant on a case bearing the same facts. Your Blog might of course be fictitious, but if it is not you need to be more careful.

  3. Abigail - June 7, 2007

    How common is it, a defendant making up a spurious defence of automatism, or even, a defendant trying to work out what lie, if it were believed, would be a good defence? Or even claimants making spurious claims? I would not expect everyone always to tell only the truth to their lawyer, but how certain do you have to be that your client is lying before you refuse to lead his evidence? Beyond reasonable doubt? Absolute certainty?
    I note that BB has indeed been careful. The lawyers and insurer appear to disbelieve the claimant, but from what BB has actually said, there is no -absolute certainty- that the claimant is lying.