Thanks for the links, incidentally i found video of the Chomsky...

Thanks for the links, incidentally i found video of the Chomsky v Foucault debate on YouTube.

I'm somewhat vague what you meant here by 'fraud' in this context.
If you meant that many of the low value "whiplash" claims are fraud, I don't know if this has been demonstrated to be true but thats on insurance companies to argue the case in favor.

If you meant that Quindell committed fraud in the specific instance of the proposed Osborne reforms.... far be it from me to defend these very shady people but the UK reforms were announced late Novmenber 2015 whereas the aquisition occurred much earlier in 2015. I don't personally know enough about UK politics to know if Quindell could reasonably have known in late 2014-early 2015 that these changes were likely, however Slater and Gordon should have had an ear to the ground for upcoming regulatory changes prior to agreeing to the deal to the extent that this was possible (which it may not have been). If Quindell could have known about it that far in advance then Slater should have known as well.

You might argue that they were Australians messing around in a foreign environment and therefore naive but this isnt really a good enough excuse. Slater had acquired other British legal firms prior to this and therefore had access to people who should be experts in the UK system. If Slater did not utilise these people then that's on Grech et al.

Quindell definitely sold SGH a lemon but I think the Osbourne changes were a separate issue.