Kingsbury family to face civil action over �10,000 insurance claim
High Court heard claims mother, father and daughter exaggerated car crash injury
AN INSURANCE company has been granted permission to take civil action against a family in relation to a five-figure payout.
Liverpool Victoria (LV=) claim Minaxi Shah, of Lewgars Avenue, Kingsbury, lied about her road crash injuries and put in a grossly inflated �600,000 insurance claim.
The High Court heard yesterday (Tuesday) that LV= are mounting a bid to have the 49-year-old mother, along with her husband Anil and daughter Neha, put behind bars for alleged contempt of court.
Mrs Shah was injured in a rear-end shunt in South London, in 2005, and put in a claim for almost �640,000 damages, not including compensation for her ‘pain, suffering and loss of amenity’.
The insurance company says Mrs Shah settled for �10,000 late last year after being confronted by video footage, secretly shot by inquiry agents in August 2009 and early last year.
LV=’s lawyers claim that Mrs Shah’s 51-year-old husband and 23-year-old daughter backed her up as she ‘lied about the nature, severity and impact’ of her injuries, particularly in relation to her ability to work.
- 1 Two charged after police discharge taser during Kingsbury vehicle stop
- 2 2 men attacked by group after fight breaks out at Queensbury Tube Station
- 3 Three Met officers receive written warning over photos of murdered sisters
- 4 Road closed after man's death in Willesden
- 5 Harlesden shop fire 'caused by barbecue'
- 6 Most wanted: 7 people sought in connection with 11 robberies across London
- 7 Complaints of 'chaos' after Harry Styles' Wembley gigs
- 8 Neasden stabbing: Man charged with St Raphael's estate murder
- 9 Jailed: Kilburn man linked to 8 knifepoint robberies in St John's Wood area
- 10 Plea date set for men accused of fatal stabbing in Neasden
Nothing whatever has been proved against the Shahs but top judge, Lord Justice Jackson, has now granted LV= permission to pursue its bid to have them jailed.
Opening the way for LV= to launch its case against the trio, Lord Justice Jackson said the company had ‘a strong prima facie case’ worthy of a full hearing.
Observing that the increasing prevalence of insurance fraud is ‘common knowledge’, the judge said it was not reasonable to expect the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute every case.
Although emphasising that nothing has been proved against Mrs Shah and her family, the judge concluded: “I am quite satisfied that bringing contempt proceedings against the three respondents is in the public interest”.