Hearing: 8–11 September 2025

Judgment: 26 September 2025

Summary

Arun Katyar (acting for the Defendant insurer, Aviva, instructed by Jennifer Brown assisted by Rachel Glover of DAC Beachcroft Solicitors) secured dismissal of the Claimant’s personal injury claim and a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The Court disapplied QOCS (CPR 44.16) and ordered C to pay D’s costs on an indemnity basis, fully enforceable, with an interim payment on account of £140,000. An interim payment on account of damages was also ordered to be repaid with interest. At D’s invitation, the Judge stated he was satisfied on the balance of probabilities and, additionally, “beyond reasonable doubt to the extent that I am sure” that C had been fundamentally dishonest.

Background

C (a front-seat passenger in her husband’s vehicle) alleged significant injury and loss after a road traffic accident on 30 October 2017 on the A12/A406. D insured a motorcyclist, Mr Hardiman, who nudged another motorcycle and its rider (Mr Hill), who then (as found by the Judge) made minor contact with C’s car. Proceedings (issued October 2020) started in the Portal/Fast Track but were re-allocated to the Multi-Track as C’s pleaded value grew to c. £100,000 plus (PI and consequential losses).

C alleged soft-tissue injury to the neck/right upper limb alleging this progressed to a chronic pain syndrome, and PTSD, with extensive disability, functional limitation and financial losses claimed in consequence. D admitted breach of duty but denied causation and quantum, and pleaded fundamental dishonesty as to both the accident mechanism and the alleged consequences.

Accident Circumstances

As for the accident findings, the Court preferred the evidence of both motorcyclists and the agreed engineering opinion. The Judge found a minor “stop and flop” event; low-level scuffing to the rear nearside quarter/door, no efficient exchange of momentum, and no unusual occupant movement.

By contrast, the dramatic accounts given by C and her husband (alleging that a motorcyclist launched head/helmet-first “like a missile” into the nearside front passenger window, jolting back/forward, a second impact, C suffering immediate urinary incontinence in the vehicle) were inconsistent with photographs, engineering evidence and inherent probabilities, and hence were rejected.

The Court held the differences were so stark they could not be explained by mistake; C and her husband concocted a whiplash story deliberately designed to get money from an insurer.

Medical Evidence

The orthopaedic joint statement acknowledged possible soft-tissue injury in the abstract, but the Judge held that conclusion could not stand on the facts found (no jolt mechanism; no structural pathology).

On pain medicine, the Court considered that if anything this was chronic primary pain unconnected to any mechanical pathway. On psychiatry/psychology, the Court preferred Dr Hicks (D’s psychiatrist); at most a transient normative stress reaction; no PTSD (Criterion A not met on the facts).

The Court attached no weight to Mr Akal (C’s psychologist) because (i) his assessment was by telephone-only, (ii) his annotation of medical records was patchy, (iii) he was unclear about pre-existing vulnerabilities, and (iv) he assumed the role of advocate.

The Judge was not reassured when Mr Akal said he could not recall details of professional complaints that had led to interim practice restrictions in 2025, noting it would have been better had this been identified from the outset rather than waiting for it to come out under cross-examination.

Surveillance

Surveillance (31 January 2023) further undermined C’s presentation. On that occasion C wore a right-shoulder immobiliser when visiting D’s orthopaedic expert, Mr Foy, whom she told, amongst other things, that her husband had to do the shopping. C then removed the immobiliser in a taxi immediately after leaving this examination to go shopping in a supermarket, and was seen carrying items herself.

Fundamental Dishonesty

Applying the test for dishonesty in Ivey v. Genting, the Court found that C invented or grossly exaggerated both the accident and its effects, feigned injury when uninjured, spent years inventing/grossly exaggerating symptoms, and concealed business activity and continued high-level functioning at work. It was held her dishonesty went to the very heart of the claim, and, as the Judge observed, “hijacked the entire trial process”.

Given that C was found not to have sustained any injury and was therefore not entitled to any damages, Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 did not bite. Rather, CPR 44.16(1) applied, and the Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis, the order being fully enforceable. An interim payment on account of D’s costs in the sum of £140,000 was ordered.