In an unprecedented victory, local law firm Beech Jones De Lloyd has won the first ever 'paternity fraud' case to reach the Appeal Court. This is the third high-profile case the firm has won in the last 12 months and this recent victory has been at the centre of national media attention.
Beech Jones De Lloyd’s client was being sued on grounds of fraud and deceit, was alleged to have deliberately misled the claimant, Mr Webb. Mr Webb claimed he was 'duped' in to thinking he was the biological father of a child he had raised for 17 years and he wanted compensation. Had he succeeded he could have been awarded very substantial damages.
Paul Dumbleton commented “Recent research has shown that the costs to bring up a child could be as much as £193,000. However, a recent court case established that only certain items could actually be claimed for in ‘paternity fraud’ types of cases and the costs of bringing up a child would not be recoverable.”
After a five-day hearing Mr Webb’s claim was dismissed by the trial Judge. Mr Webb sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal. He failed to persuade the three Lords Justice of Appeal.
Lord Justice Thorpe, in dismissing the appeal, said that if the claim went ahead it would, "Visit upon the litigants huge burdens, both financial and emotional, which are disproportionate to any prospects of success."
Paul Dumbleton also commented, “We are pleased for our client and his family that at last the claim brought by Mr Webb is at an end.
Frankly, the case should never have been brought. Fortunately, our client was represented by Peter Prescott QC who is without doubt at this time the most brilliant barrister in England & Wales. Mr Nicholas Mostyn QC who represented Mr Webb was outclassed.
We really feel for all of the people involved in this case but we especially feel for the innocent child that is at the centre of the whirlwind of the claim brought by the person she had grown up thinking was her father.
Although the case has been ‘billed’ as a family case, in fact it was a case brought in the tort of deceit. The law in this area is well established but historically it has only ever been used in a commercial context.
There is no doubt that a claim can be brought in a family situation but it does raise some interesting issues. For example, should a wife be entitled to sue for damages in the tort of deceit because her husband said he married her because he loved her - but years later she finds out that he did not? She might say that she should be compensated for the ‘lost’ years when she could have been married to somebody who did love her. Was she not deceived into marrying the husband?
What about a claim where a woman says, ‘We can have sex; I’m on the pill’ but she falls pregnant because she was not on the pill. Should the man be able to sue for damages? After all he was deceived.
The instances where a deception is committed in a family setting are probably too numerous to mention, and it seems to us that on grounds of public policy, such claims should never be allowed to be brought.
The repercussions of this case may send a shiver down the spine of many husbands, wives and partners throughout the country. In this case, it was clear that our client had not deceived the child’s father. But what if somebody had? In fact, the level of compensation may vary enormously but if somebody finds himself or herself in a situation similar to this case, they must be very careful about what they say and don’t say.”
A transcript of the Judgment is available at www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi