Grant Greening-Steer v Derek Ainge [2026] EWHC 1239 (KB)

[2026] EWHC 1239 (KB)Case No QB-2022-0001798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Venue THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICEDate 22.05.2026
Before
MR JUSTICE RITCHIE
Between
GRANT GREENING-STEERClaimant- and –
Between
DEREK AINGEDefendantThe Claimant appeared in person, assisted by his McKenzie friend Mr Richard Dwyer. for in personCharles Woodhouse KC (instructed by Messrs Keoghs) for Defendant.Hearing Hearing dates: 28 April; 1, 4-8 May 2026
[1]The Claimant suffered a road traffic accident (RTA) on 10.6.2019 whilst riding his motorcycle on a main road from his home in Barton-on-Sea to Reading. He was going to work. The Defendant was driving his car out of a side road and collided with the Claimant, who was thrown off the motorcycle and suffered serious injuries. The Claimant issued the claim on 8.6.2022 and the Defendant’s RTA insurers ran the defence.

Bundles

[2]For the hearing I was provided with 34 paper lever arch files and a skeleton argument from each party. A follow up skeleton was filed after the hearing at my request by the Defendant but not the Claimant. Summary[3]The unusual aspect of this trial was that the Claimant was representing himself. He had initially engaged lawyers, Carol Nash Solicitors. They issued the claim, gathered the lay and expert evidence and served it. Joint expert reports were obtained and served. His schedule of loss was drafted by counsel. Then the Defendant served video surveillance evidence so the Claimant’s lawyers gathered response evidence and then terminated the retainer. The Claimant pressed on without lawyers. He managed to obtain a supplementary report on the video evidence from Mr Tromans, his rehabilitation expert, but did not obtain any other updating reports and did not call any of his other experts at trial.[4]The Claimant applied for permission for a McKenzie Friend to do his advocacy and help him with his paperwork at trial. I gave an extempore judgment allowing both because it was the Claimant’s case that he had a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) on the Mayo scale with serious cognitive sequellae and a serious incomplete spinal cord injury and was therefore disadvantaged in representing himself. In the event his McKenzie Friend handled the trial with politeness and poise. Mr Woodhouse KC fulfilled his professional obligations to assist with bundle references and other neutral support to facilitate the Claimant being able to present his case as he chose.

The Issues

[5]The issues for me to decide in this case are as follows:5.1 Determination of the diagnosis of the injuries suffered by the Claimant in the RTA.5.2 Determination of the sequellae arising from the injuries covering his symptoms and disabilities past, present and future.5.3 Determination of:(1) whether the Claimant has been fundamentally dishonest over his reporting and presentation of his symptoms and disabilities and, if so,(2) whether dismissing the claim will cause substantial injustice to the Claimant.5.4 Determination of the quantum of the Claimant’s pain, suffering and loss of amenity and his past and future loss and expense.

Pleadings and chronology of the action

[6]The injuries listed in the Particulars of Claim were: a traumatic brain injury (TBI) with brain bleeding; an incomplete spinal cord injury from C1-C7 and query at the thoracic spine too; a left shoulder injury and a left hip injury. It was pleaded that the Claimant is grossly handicapped on the labour market.[7]Liability was admitted in the defence but the nature and extent of the Claimant’s disabilities was not admitted. On 24.11.2025 the defence was amended to plead that the Claimant had been fundamentally dishonest by deliberately exaggerating his symptoms and disability. The specifics of the alleged malingering were his reports and presentations of:(1) very restricted walking distance;(2) needing and using an ankle/foot orthosis (AFO);(3) very disabled gait, dragging his left leg, plodding with his right leg;(4) no left arm swing when walking;(5) driving only short distances and only in automatic cars;(6) inability to work. The Defendant pleaded that the surveillance videos showed the Claimant: (1) can walk extended distances; (2) does not use an AFO; (3) can walk with a normal gait; (4) has left arm swing when he walks; (5) can drive long distances in a variety of vehicles, including manual shift vans; (6) failed to disclose directorships of new companies set up after the RTA and failed symptom validity tests carried out by the neuropsychology experts.[8]Extensive disclosure was requested and provided. It was set out in trial bundles 5-32.

Quantum

[9]The figures claimed in the Claimant’s schedule and those admitted in the Defendant’s counter-schedule are summarised below.

The witness evidence

[10]I heard evidence from the following lay witnesses:10.1 The Claimant.10.2 Jamie Jackson.10.3 Scott Wilson.10.4 Sarah Chilcott (the Claimant’s ex-wife).10.5 Several surveillance operatives employed by Robertsons Investigators at the relevant times.[11]I heard evidence from the following expert witnesses. For the Claimant:11.1 Mr Anthony Tromans. For the Defendant:11.2 Mr Kirkpartrick.11.3 Doctor Cockerell.11.4 Professor Kemp.11.5 Doctor Jacobson.11.6 Doctor Leschinskiy.11.7 Doctor Shah.11.8 Tessa Gough.[12]One aspect of the evidence about which I have had to think carefully is the value or weight of the witness evidence which was not called. So, for instance, the Claimant served quite a few other lay witness statements but none of the witnesses were called. These were from: Jenna Poole, Michael Brooks, Peter Garland, Charris Byrne, Sharon Ong. In addition, the Claimant did not obtain supplementary reports on the video evidence from the following expert witnesses whose earlier reports he had served and relied on: Doctor Shetty; Doctor Allder; Mr Reynard; Doctor Maddicks; Doctor Bodani; Jane James; Maurice Faull. The Defendant did not call Mr Pillar, its forensic accountant, whose report had been served.[13]The Defendant did not object to the Claimant’s witness statements and reports going into the trial bundle. CPR PD 32 para. 27.2 makes all agreed documents in the trial bundle admissible in evidence at trial. The Defendant did not object to my reading them or to the Claimant relying upon them, subject to the submission that without them being stress tested in cross examination, the Defendant asserted that little weight could be put upon the factual assertions made by the Claimant’s lay witnesses and the opinions given by the Claimant’s experts. The statement of Sharon Ong was agreed so I take it into account.[14]I considered that, for the lay witnesses, it would not be right for me to place any weight on their factual assertions because they had not been called and cross examined. The primary rule in English and Welsh Courts is that evidence of fact is given at trial, live, unless there is a proper reason given for non-attendance, for instance: death, ill health, absence through being abroad with good reason despite the summons to Court and the like. No such reasons were put forwards by the Claimant. As for the experts’ reports which had been served by the Claimant when he had lawyers (including the opinions given by them in the joint reports), I have read them and will rely on the notes made of what the Claimant told them about his symptoms and disabilities and their examination results, but their opinions all predate the video surveillance and so are based on incomplete evidence, therefore I will not be giving them much weight, unless I say so below.

Findings of fact

[15]I make the following findings of fact on the balance of probabilities having heard all of the evidence and the submissions and read trial bundles numbered 1-4, 33 and 34 and selected documents from bundles 5-32 pointed to by the parties. I will explain as I progress why I have accepted some evidence and rejected other evidence. Before the RTA[16]The Claimant was born in March 1975 and is now 51. He is 6 feet 4 inches tall. He lived in Barton-on-Sea in a 3 bed, two storey house with a front and rear garden and a separate garage. His wife and youngest child (now aged 11) lived there with him. He met his wife in 2004 and married in 2012. He had two older children from two different relationships (now aged 24 and 26). He had been brought up in Reading and had left school at 16 to work as an apprentice with his father who ran a refrigeration company. His father had suffered a serious road traffic accident when the Claimant was young. After 5 years he became an engineer there and stayed until about 2000, when his father sold up. The Claimant then worked for other companies in refrigeration and in 2008-2009 he set up his own company in or near Reading. He was a “hands-on” engineer, company director and the sole shareholder. His father gave him three vans. In 2014 a company called BC Air Conditioning and Refrigeration ltd (BCA) was incorporated. The Claimant was not initially a director, Sarah Chilcott and Steven Mildenhal were. Then Zach Greening-Steer and the Claimant became directors. They shut that in 2017. In 2015 the Claimant expanded into new premises and in 2016 he set up BC Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Ltd (BCR), having close Brit Cooling. Before the RTA he had built up an impressive customer base including big companies: WH Smith; Gourmet Burgers; Tortilla Restaurants and The Queen were customers. He would measure, design and install systems. He employed 3 office staff and 5 engineers. He liked living by the sea so, each morning early (at around 5.30 am), he would jump on his motorbike and ride the 60 – 70 miles to Reading. He would also drive to clients’ premises, so he drove a lot. He liked his job. His hobbies were all speed and engineering related, so he had a speed boat, a jet ski, a cabrio Bentley GT car and motor bikes. He also went snow skiing. The family had holidays in the Caribbean and Mexico and took weekends away too. The Claimant owned a second property in Newbury which he rented out. He had good friends and asserted that he was happy. In fact, the Claimant’s GP notes painted a slightly less rosy picture. His marriage was turbulent. He had obtained a non-molestation order against his wife for violence and he reported a range of ailments to his GP. These included: in 2013, shooting pain in his right temple; in 2015 he reported erectile dysfunction and was prescribed Viagra; in 2016 he reported stress at work and that he was under police protection; in 2017 he reported blood in his vomit and dark stools and had a suspected bleeding ulcer; in 2018 he reported his marriage was troubled and had been for many years and he thought his wife was bi-polar, used drugs and was violent. He was given anti-depressant medication. He also reported intense right-hand pain. The RTA – 10.6.2019[17]The Claimant was thrown off his motorcycle by the impact. I find that the injuries which he suffered were as follows:17.1 A fractured nose. A laceration below his right eye and swelling above it. His helmet visor was smashed.17.2 A set of traumatic brain injuries including bleeds shown on scans in the left temporal and right medial sub-arachnoid areas and damage causing asymmetrical ventricles.17.3 Soft tissue injury to his left shoulder, leading to frozen shoulder.17.4 A spinal cord injury causing a fracture to a C4 transverse process and bleeding to the cord with fluid pressure compressing it from C3-C7 causing incomplete spinal cord injury (ISCI) around that level leading to quasi Brown-Sequard syndrome and perhaps ASIA D disability.17.5 A fracture to the transverse process of L4.17.6 A soft tissue injury to his left hip.17.7 Psychiatric sequellae. After the RTA - 2019[18]I do not know whether the Claimant lost consciousness at the scene. He reported to some experts that he could not recall from the period when he braked until he woke up in hospital. The ambulance crew recorded that he was agitated but conscious on arrival at the scene and at Wessex Spinal Unit in Southampton General Hospital (SGH) he had a Glascow Coma Score of 15/15, which is fully conscious. 4 days later he underwent spinal laminectomy which involves trying to relieve the pressure on the spinal cord by cutting away spinal column bone. He was at SGH for 2 weeks. He was initially tetraplegic (no limb movement) but when he left and was transferred to Poole Hospital for rehabilitation he had regained 4 limb function, albeit much reduced. There, physiotherapy and rehabilitation treatment led to him being able to walk 200 metres and use his arms. He stayed about a month but self-discharged, inter alia because the food was bad. There was evidence of cognitive damage, he achieved an MOCA (cognitive assessment) score of 17/30 on 27.6.2019 rising to 21/30 by 11.7.2019 (anything under 27 indicates impairment). He scored 85/100 on the Northwick Park Cognition Test on 15.7.2019, a borderline result. His wife looked after him for around 1.6 years, then they separated and she left the home in February 2021.[19]I shall now summarise or highlight some of the medical records about the Claimant’s recovery interleaved with my findings of fact on the balance of probabilities arising from all of the evidence. I take into account that not all treating medical records are wholly accurate but they are independent.[20]On 21.8.2019 a rehabilitation consultant noted that the Claimant would be able to drive and control a car. Between August and October 2019 the Claimant was treated by Solent Rehabilitation in Southampton (including by Ms Tuttiett, a neuro-physiotherapist). In her discharge report (13.2.2020) Ms Tuttiett recorded that initially the Claimant could mobilise independently indoors and for short distances outside, using a crutch but limited by weakness in his legs. He had a stiff and painful neck and left shoulder. His left-hand dexterity was reduced and he had altered sensation in the left arm. His left hip and leg were weak. He attended 6 sessions for arm and leg physiotherapy. The outcome was that the Claimant’s left-hand grip improved, his get up and go times improved, an injection into his shoulder helped with the pain but there were still 30 degrees of reduced left shoulder lift movement. He had achieved “a successful phased return to work with an adaptation of his roles and responsibilities”. He did not attend the last two appointments. During this time Mr Ruane, another physiotherapist, recorded on 19.9.2019 (3 months after the RTA) that the Claimant had made an “excellent recovery”, was walking independently with some leg weakness, improved arm function with left arm sensory symptoms and was “currently working on a buggy to race which requires him to do all manner of activities using his” arms and legs. I infer that this is the beach buggy mentioned below. Anti-neuropathic medication was helping him sleep but he complained of tiredness. The Claimant was recorded as having “normal bladder and bowel control and has normal sexual function.” He had clonus when initiating standing but this soon settled. He walked with a wide gait and with reasonable balance and had excellent leg strength (4+ to 5/5). His arm strength was 4/5 on both sides. He was recovering well. On 25th October 2019 the Claimant’s GP service noted the Claimant had returned to work 3 days pw up in Reading. On physical work days he drove a forklift truck and helped with stocktaking in the warehouse. The Claimant reported a fall at home in August due to using crutches on stairs which caused back pain. By 8.11.2019 his GP service noted he was working 4 days pw in Reading and staying up midweek, but he was struggling physically and so had adapted to an administrative role. The company was earning less money due to his absence. He suffered left hip and shoulder pain and wanted more physio. The GP service advised him to join a gym. On 17.12.2019 urodynamic studies showed a stable bladder with good capacity. He was prescribed Solifenacin on 20.12.2019 by Miss Davies for urgency. 2020[21]By February 2020 (8 months after the RTA) Sandie Townsend, a urology nurse, recorded that after the urodynamics taken in December 2019, and treatment with Solfenacin, the Claimant reported his urgency symptoms were “much improved”. This was confirmed again in April 2020 by Pippa Caygill, a consultant in urology.[22]By March 2020, Doctor Burn, the Claimant’s treating consultant in brain injury, recorded that he should try a left foot splint and Baclofen. He noted the Claimant’s neurogenic pain was controlled by Gabapentin (600mg) x 3 pd. The Claimant had difficulty opening his left hand and it jerked and was cold. He had quite marked shaking and clonus of the left leg, after being immobile or after a long car journey and getting out of bed in the morning. The left shoulder was much improved. He had stopped taking Amitriptyline. He had returned to working 2-3 dpw but was having memory difficulties. He had abnormal neck posture but had retained his left arm power with slow movements. His left leg muscle bulk was reduced and he had weakness and clonus. He had suffered another recent fall and he asked for a foot splint. The Doctor was perplexed by a lump over his lower back. Then COVID lockdown took place.[23]In July 2020 the Claimant was given his licence back on his own evidence. The DVLA documents and communications are confusing, but I find that as a fact.[24]On 2.9.2020 Bush and Co provided a telephone-based rehabilitation report under the Rehabilitation Code which was triggered by the litigation. It was addressed to both sets of lawyers. R Sudhakarn noted the Claimant’s complaints. The Claimant reported another more serious fall with resulting stitches, due to a facial laceration. He suffered worse spasms in the cold. He could walk short distances (300 yards) to the shops with his wife unaided, then he suffered a burning sensation in his legs and had to rest. The Claimant had not been able to access any rehabilitation during lockdown. He had used an electric bike at home. His mood was better and he was more accepting of the changes to his life. His memory was still poor. The case manager recommended physiotherapy and neuropsychology treatment. As for work, the Claimant reported his business had shut during covid and had only recently reopened. 2021[25]The Claimant and his wife separated in February/March 2021. They had a protracted fight over custody of their daughter.[26]In August 2021 the Claimant sold his Bentley GT Cabrio, which he had been driving and bought a 4 door automatic Aston Martin Rapide (Reg. ending BCV) for £48,000 using part exchange. He drove that until 2023 when he sold it and bought another Aston Martin Rapide (reg GGS) which was 2 door and automatic. He sold that in 2025.[27]On 23rd June 2021 Mr Aldington, a treating Doctor in pain management, noted that that the Claimant complained of pain in his arm and leg but the real problem was his neck and he noted an emotional component. The Claimant wanted to take no more pills.[28]On 13.8.2021 Kirsty Cook of Hobbs Rehabilitation noted that the Claimant had continued his exercise programme and taken a beach walk with his son but had fallen twice and had to rest for a week. The Claimant’s headaches had reduced to one pw. She noted that he said that his AFO, which had been introduced midway through the year, enabled him to walk 100 m with pain at 6/10 and he was more confident on his left leg. She recommended vocational assistance, self-management of pain and hydrotherapy.[29]On 1.10.2021 the Claimant was captured on video driving the Aston through Christchurch to his friend’s house. 2022[30]On 27.1.2022 the Claimant’s GP recorded frequent spasms on the left side. He had taken two forms of erectile assistance with some improvement.[31]On 15.3.2022 he told his treating urology consultant he had urgency but no bladder accidents.[32]On 16.6.2022 the Claimant was examined by Mr Tromans at his home in Barton-on-Sea. He used a friend to help him rise from his chair, he walked with a dragging left leg and plodding right foot and had no arm swing. He was unable to step with his eyes closed. He complained of falls. He said he had very limited walking distance. He complained of foot drop. He said his buttocks were hypersensitive (contradicting himself later when he asserted he could not feel his bottom). He complained of bladder urgency and no awareness of his bowels and weekly bowel accidents (much worse than he had previously reported to his treating doctors). Mr Tromans noted that he had been tested for anal sensation in hospital and could feel a finger. The Claimant asserted that he had no spontaneous erections but could ejaculate. I note that this was later contradicted when the Claimant asserted to others that he had no sexual function at all. He asserted that he needed to hold onto things to get up due to leg spasms and he asserted that he dropped things when he coughed or in the cold due to spasms. He complained of a burning sensation in his right leg from knee to foot (contradicting other descriptions of no feeling in the right leg and burning only under the arch and at the top of his leg). He complained that he had constant pins and needles in his left hand and his left arm was hypersensitive, but his left shoulder could not feel heat when in the shower. The Claimant asserted that he had stopped taking Gabapentin in hospital (this was wrong, he was still taking it long after then). He admitted being able to dress, shave and fill a kettle but asserted that he could not cook or clean the house. He asserted that he used a borrowed power wheelchair.[33]On 8.9.2022 the Claimant was captured on video filling his Aston Martin with fuel, bending down, standing up, holding the filler tube in his right hand, walking normally with no foot drop and then driving up the M3 motorway (to see his granddaughter in the Reading area, 60-70 miles each way, on his evidence).[34]On 27.9.2022 the Claimant was captured on video driving his company’s blue manual shift van, filling it up, possibly limping at the service station, carrying snacks and bottles in his left hand, getting normally into the van, using both hands to drive, then driving up to Brixton in London. He got out after those 100-110 miles of driving and walked normally over a medium distance into a restaurant called Chishuru, which he admitted in cross examination was a client of his company. He returned to his van to get a red box and then to the restaurant. I infer that he drove back home thereafter. He was not accompanied.[35]In October 2022 the Claimant set up a new company with Charris Byrne called “C and G Refrigerated Trailer Hire Ltd”. They were both directors and equal shareholders. In January 2024 they stopped trying to run that business. Messages show that they fell out over marketing and input.[36]On 23.11.2022 the Claimant drove to the examination by Mr Kirkpatrick in Hertfordshire. He went in his Aston Martin with a friend called Jamie Jackson. They stopped at a service station near Winchester. He stood for quite a long time queuing for a Burger King meal without any apparent discomfort. He walked normally back to the car. He got in and drove for 50 miles (on his admission in cross examination). They drove home afterwards. Yet, at the examination that day he told Mr Kirkpatrick that he could only walk 10-20 metres, maximum. I find that was untrue. He asserted that he could not weight bear solely on his left leg because it would give way. I do not accept that assertion. His movements were “slow and deliberate”, which is quite different from his movements on all of the videos taken that day. I find that his display of slow and deliberate movements were faked disability. He told Mr Kirkpatrick that he had no sexual function. I reject that assertion because it does not match his post-accident recovery during which he said he had sexual function and it contradicts what he told Mr Tromans a few months earlier. Furthermore, as Mr Reynard records, at para. 19 of his first report, the Claimant had been prescribed Viagra in 6 different months in 2020, 3 different months in 2021 and two different months in 2022. He was also prescribed Cialis. If the Claimant had no sexual function these prescriptions would have been unnecessary. The Claimant asserted that his driving tolerance was 10-15 minutes before it became restricted by spasms. I reject that as untrue, not least because the Claimant admitted in cross examination that he had driven for 50 miles from the Winchester service station (Burger King) that very day.[37]On 25.11.2022 the Claimant was captured on video driving the company blue van and filling it up. He opened the door with his left hand and arm. Then he drove onto the motorway. He drove to Belvedere Road in London. He was then lost by the surveillance operatives but I infer that he drove home thereafter. He had no one with him.[38]On 26.11.2022 the Claimant was captured again on video driving the company van, so two days in a row.[39]On 6.12.2022 the Claimant was examined by Tessa Gough. I am not clear form her report what he said then and what he said later in her second visit in 2024. 2023[40]On 30.1.2023, in an initial needs assessment by a new Rehabilitation Code Occupational Therapist (Ms Silva), the Claimant reported that he still had spasms down his left side and altered sensation on the left and right sides; could only walk 10 m then he got burning sensations and fatigue; had 2-3 falls pw; had erectile dysfunction; bladder and bowel dysfunction with no bowel sensation; never had any speech problems (contradicting his complaints of such); watched TV all day and was not on any pills for pain.[41]On 9.5.2023 the Claimant met Jane James, his forensic care expert. He told her that his ex-wife left within 6 months of the RTA. This was contradicted by other statements that she left in February/March 2021, so one and half years after the accident. He asserted that he had a frozen left shoulder, which was untrue, that condition had been resolved by injections years earlier. He asserted that he could not tolerate standing still – that was not true. He stated that his mobility was significantly impaired. He furniture walked around the home, precariously and he stated that he walked very short distances outside, usually from the car to the house door. I find that all of those walking presentations and assertions were untrue. He reported that he suffered spasms on the left-hand side when he moved, worse in the cold or when out. He reported “extreme urinary” urgency, I consider that was an intentional exaggeration. He reported that he was limited to driving short distances in the Aston (I find that was untrue). He failed to mention that he drove the works van, which was manual, or that he had driven to London multiple times. He stated that he had holidayed abroad before the RTA but only went to Newquay after and it was “unlikely” that he could tolerate long haul flights (he flew to Jamaica a year later). He asserted that his company was being liquidated. That does not seem to have been accurate because it was still trading in 2026.[42]On 13.6.2023, at the examination by Doctor Shetty, a video of the Claimant’s presentation was taken. I have seen it. The presentation is quite different from any of the Claimant’s presentations in the surveillance videos. I consider that his presentation was grossly exaggerated and consciously so. The Claimant told Doctor Shetty that he had constant right leg pain at a level of between 4 and 9 out of 10. Worse in the cold and aggravated by movement. He complained of lower back pain since the RTA, left arm sensitivity and a burning sensation at 3 to 7 out of 10, aggravated by movement. He asserted constant left hip aching pain aggravated by walking. He asserted good and bad days. He denied taking any pain medication. He stated he could not stand in a queue with over 5 people. He mobilised with a crutch on cold days. That assertion is contradicted by the videos of him using no crutch and the Claimant’s own evidence that he had stopped using a crutch long before then. He asserted that he wore an AFO for his left foot drop. I consider that his assertion of enduring foot drop was untrue. Firstly, because none of the videos show left foot drop when he walked and this was confirmed by Doctor Cockerell and Mr Kirkpatrick in evidence, and secondly because in his evidence the Claimant stated he found the AFO uncomfortable so did not wear it. He asserted that he was limited in driving to 30 minutes. This, I find to have been an untrue statement because he had driven alone to and from London, a journey taking at least 1.5 hours but probably 2-3 hours each way, depending on the traffic. The Claimant asserted that he avoided air travel (he flew to Gibraltar 6 months later). The Claimant asserted that he had been unable to work since the accident due to his inability to lift weights and to drive long distances. I find this to have been only partly true. I shall explain later. In the examination by Doctor Shetty the Claimant displayed slow movement, unsteady gait, signs of foot drop and hyperalgesia. I take into account that on examination Doctor Shetty found an objective sign: left leg calf muscle wasting.[43]On 23.6.2023 the Claimant was captured on video at the Cliff House restaurant, near where he lives, limping a little, wearing sliders, with shorts, meeting a friend, drinking with his left hand holding a beer glass, gesticulating with both hands normally and holding his mobile phone in his left hand normally.[44]On 17.8.2023 the Claimant drove to London to be examined by Doctor Jacobson, accompanied by Jenna Poole, who he asserted was his cleaner. He stayed over in a hotel with her, in the same room. They ran up a bill of £488.50. They drove to the examination in the morning. When he got out of the van near the consulting rooms he can be seen displaying an obvious limp. When he came out of the examination rooms, again he was obviously limping, but soon thereafter they went to a pub in Kennington Road and sat outside smoking, talking and drinking. He cuddled Miss Poole. Then they walked off hand in hand. His walking was now quite normal in my estimation. I find that he drove the van back to the South Coast himself. In the examination by Doctor Jacobson that day the Claimant reported that he was suffering disabling neuropathic pain in the right leg, left hip and left arm with loss of sensation to hot and cold but not to touch on the right side up to mid chest. He complained of weakness of the left leg and the need for an AFO, a weak left grip, tremors and spasms, headaches, changes to smell and taste and blurred vision, poor concentration and memory, personality changes and psychological sequellae. Doctor Jacobson pointed out a list of contradictions in the Claimant’s accounts:(1) smoking: the Claimant said on 18.10.2019 that he never smoked before the RTA, the medical notes contradicted that;(2) alcohol: the Claimant reported on 18.10.2019 that he did not drink or take drugs, the medical records and his wife’s evidence contradicted that;(3) pain: there was a discrepancy between the Claimant’s high pain scores and the lack of observed pain (before the surveillance videos were disclosed);(4) irritability: the Claimant denied irritability to Doctor Jacobson, which was contradicted by the records;(5) the Claimant denied a past psychiatric history, which the records contradicted;(6) the Claimant denied marital difficulties before the RTA, this was contradicted by the records;(7) the Claimant’s account of his return to work was contradicted by the records. Thus, Doctor Jacobson concluded, before the surveillance videos were disclosed, that the Claimant was an unreliable historian. I accept that conclusion and agree. This was a prescient opinion.[45]On 6.9.2023 the Claimant was captured on video driving his company’s blue manual shift van to Bournemouth, to one of his customer’s restaurants. He walked normally, a quite long distance, but when returning to his van I do see some left leg gait abnormality. He returned to the restaurant and shut the van door with his left arm and hand. Then he drove onto the M3 and all the way to Newbury. I infer that he drove back as well that same day.[46]Two days later, on 8.9.2023, the Claimant was captured on video driving the topless Kit Car which he registered in his name and which he admitted in evidence is insured in his name as his vehicle. I find that it is his vehicle and is not his son’s car. He stopped, got out nimbly, filled it up with petrol using both hands and climbed back in. He bent down forwards and sideways when filling it up. He carried a bottle in his left hand. Then he drove away and the car broke down on a dual carriageway. Then he pushed it off the dual carriageway onto the grassy central reservation. His body posture when doing so indicated that he used considerable force through his outstretched arms, back and legs. Then he stood about for a long time awaiting help. Then he undid a rope and he was towed away by a friend. None of that video supports the Claimant’s assertions of a very weak left leg with uncontrollable spasms such that he cannot stand on it nor walk on it nor of a very weak left arm or hand.[47]On 2.10.2023 the Claimant was examined at his home by Doctor Allder. The Claimant complained of altered taste and smell, but Doctor Allder noted that this was contradicted by the medical records dated 18.6.2019. He complained of blurry vision at night and light sensitivity, but this was contradicted by the same medical records and the note made by Doctor Burn on 21.8.2019. The Claimant also complained of hearing reduction, but Doctor Allder noted this was contradicted by the medical records dated 2.7.2019 and Doctor Allder advised any such loss was unrelated to the RTA. Doctor Allder noted that the Claimant was weaned off Gabapentin in January 2021 and had not felt worse thereafter. The Claimant complained of altered sensation on his chest and abdomen, legs and arm, a reduced range of movement of his left shoulder and an inability to move his left leg. This last complaint was clearly untrue. He complained of no sensation in his right leg other than the arch. He complained of being unable to unclench his left fist or fully extend his fingers. I find that that assertion was untrue. He complained of such high sensitivity over his left upper arm that he could not travel in a car with an open window. Taking into account his drive in his kit car with no roof or sides I consider that assertion to have been untrue. He asserted he could only walk short distances and then he tripped over – for instance to his car outside his house. I find that statement was untrue. On examination he was slow to mobilise from sitting to standing, needed support, had a narrow gait and obvious left foot drop - I find that all of that disability was fabricated. Interestingly, Doctor Allder found the power in his legs to be 4+ on the left and 5/5 on the right.[48]On 16.11.2023 the Claimant was assessed by his medico-legal neuropsychologist, Doctor Maddicks. He was found not to have engaged properly with the Performance Validity Test (PVTs) or Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) so that the expert was unable to provide an opinion on whether the Claimant was actually capable, cognitively and memory wise, of working. Jamie Jackson was present and actively suggested that there had been enough medical examinations and that this one was unnecessary. The Claimant told Doctor Maddicks that:
“… he experiences spasms in his left hand and leg, often triggered by being in certain positions e.g., when driving and recently when seated at the dentist.” … “he frequently experiences spasms if he is in his car for too long”
. I contrast that statement with Mr Dwyer’s statement in closing that the Claimant’s left leg spasms do not occur when the Claimant is driving long distances, e.g. to London, and only arise when he stands up on getting out of the car. That was the explanation at trial for the Claimant being able to drive long distances, despite his asserted uncontrollable left leg spasms. I am afraid that I consider that what the Claimant told Doctor Maddicks in italics above was untrue. If this were actually true, the Claimant should never have driven due to the danger to himself, his daughter when in the car or van, and all other road users.[49]In December 2023 the Claimant filed his first witness statement which I will summarise later. 2024[50]On 25.1.2024, the Claimant flew from Heathrow to Gibraltar with his friend Jamie Jackson. The surveillance videos at Heathrow show him walking normally, pulling a wheelie bag, manipulating his passport with his left hand normally, standing around smoking outside and show no left foot drop or limp. This piece of evidence fits in with the evidence of his ex-wife in cross examination, which I shall deal with later.[51]On 23.2.2024 the Claimant was examined by Professor Kemp, the Defendant’s neuropsychologist. The Claimant failed the PVTs and SVTs which he was asked to perform and the conclusion which the Professor drew was that he had suffered, at most, some mild neurocognitive deficit from the TBI and no significant enduring sequelae. The Professor advised that the Claimant reported no retrograde amnesia and no discernible post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) on detailed Rivermead Protocol questioning, however he accepted some PTA of indeterminate length. The Claimant incorrectly reported that his life and marriage were “going well” before the RTA, contradicting his GP and medical records. The Claimant asserted that his business was “about to fold” and denied any post-accident work after his unsuccessful attempt to return. He reported that in cold weather he was unable to get from his lounge to his kitchen and on a good day he could walk 100-150m and could not go out on a windy day because he would be blown over. I find that those statements were untrue. He reported daily headaches (contradicting earlier reports of one pw) and that his sense of taste and smell was “non-existent”. I find that the former was a conscious exaggeration and the latter was untrue. He stated he had an awful memory with no recollection of past holidays, of meeting his wife, his wedding or the births of his children, other than snippets. I find that these statements were intentional gross exaggerations and untruths when compared with the way the Claimant gave evidence in Court in minute detail of his memory of many past matters including the video surveillance days.[52]On 29.2.2024 the Claimant applied for Personal Independence Payments (PIPs). The form shows that he gave telephone information. He complained of daily headaches (contradicting his statements to others that they had reduced to one pw). He asserted that his bladder pills were effective but he was incontinent once pw. He was not taking pain killers on prescription, only OTC (over the counter) pills.(1) He asserted that he used his neighbour’s mobility scooter.(2) He was unable to walk his dog.(3) He was unable to work.(4) He struggled to get in and out of his car, which was low, and he drove once a week at most and could not really use his left hand, hence it was automatic. I find that statements (1) – (4) were untrue. He had a constant burning sensation in the right side of his body. He wore his AFO and got left leg spasms when he was cold, stressed, anxious standing or moving. He asserted that these happened suddenly and daily with no warning and he regularly fell, once a day, with no warning. I find that those statements were all untrue. He could not grip anything with his left hand. That was untrue. His left arm was weak. His left hip was painful. His lower back was constantly painful. He could only stand for 2 minutes and could not prepare food. He could not hold cutlery in his left hand. He could not cut food with both hands. “he would not drive himself anywhere unfamiliar or further away due to leg pain”. I find that those statements were also untrue.[53]On 13.3.2024 the Claimant’s solicitors called the Defendant’s solicitors and informed them that the Claimant could not attend the examination by Doctor Cockerell on 14.3.2024 because the person supposed to be taking the Claimant could not do so and he could not use a taxi because he needed someone with him. There is an attendance note of the call. On that very same day the Claimant was videoed driving his blue transit van at 08.45 am from his home onto the motorway. He was going so fast that the surveillance operatives lost him in the area a few miles from his new warehouse at Hollybush Lane near Reading. He must have driven home, because the next morning the blue van was seen there. I find that he was working that day.[54]On 14.3.2024, far from being unable to get out and travel without assistance, the Claimant was again out in the morning in the blue manual shift company van and drove to Reading again, on his own. He entered his new warehouse premises and stayed for 2-3 hours. He picked up a manual shift Luton box van and then drove that to his old warehouse at Send Road, near Reading. The Claimant then spent 1.5 hours loading the box van with refrigeration equipment, including fridges and metal machinery, which was large. He also loaded metal piping and other parts. He did this alone. He used a forklift truck and operated the circular steering wheel, with the vertical handle, with on some occasions his right hand and on other occasions his left hand. He stepped up and down off the tail-lift and he manually shifted large fridges and equipment inside the box van using both hands, arms and legs. He also used a sack trolley to lift heavy equipment using his hands, arms and legs. Just for fun, he drove one of his staff around on the forks of the fork-lift truck. He then drove the box van to the new warehouse and (I infer) drove home. This was a remarkable piece of video. I consider that his movements in the cold weather (he was wearing a padded jacket) were normal, fluent and powerful. He was confident and agile. I find that he was working in his business.[55]Thus, I find that the reason given by the Claimant, through his solicitors to the Defendant’s solicitors, for failing to attend Doctor Cockerell’s examination that day, was untrue. The Claimant had no need of someone to drive him. He could drive himself and chose not to go and gave an untruthful reason for doing so. From a careful examination of the video, I also find that the Claimant was capable, in the temperature of a March day, of driving manual vehicles long distances, driving forklift trucks with both hands, driving a Luton Box van and of lifting and moving heavy equipment and doing so over 1.5 hours. He could easily operate a forklift truck. His hands, arms, legs and ankles were not troubling him in any significant way whilst he did so.[56]Doctor Cockerell did get to meet the Claimant on 17.4.2024, in London, and reported that the Claimant told him that he could recall nothing from riding his motorcycle before the impact to waking up in hospital afterwards. He asserted he had very little memory of his time in SGH or Poole Hospital and asserted that his memory was so poor he had little recollection of recent events either. Having seen the Claimant give evidence over 1.5 days in the witness box and not miss a single question, he did not suggest any lack of recollection in any response (other than one) and gave really detailed excuses for every aspect of the surveillance videos. I find that he was not telling the truth to Doctor Cockerell. The Claimant asserted that he could not do his previous job due to memory issues and reduced concentration. He asserted that he could not watch TV because he became bored (contradicting what he told others about watching all day). He complained of word finding difficulty, contradicting what was set out early on in the medical notes. He complained of pain “all over his body”, but mainly in his right leg, worse on activity and movement, also in his left hip and left arm and of having a constantly stiff neck. He reported uncontrollable left arm and leg spasms. I reject those assertions as untrue. Were they true then driving a car or manual shift van long distances or short ones would have been dangerous for him, his passengers and other road users. In the 6 years since the RTA the Claimant has not crashed his vehicles, despite driving to London, Hertfordshire and Reading many times. The Claimant told Doctor Cockerell he did manage his own affairs but could not go shopping alone or cook or do cleaning. I consider that those assertions were untrue, in the light of the surveillance videos and the multiple contradictions in the Claimant’s evidence.[57]On 24.4.2024 the Claimant had a telephone consultation with John Reynard (his medico-legal consultant urologist). The Claimant told him that he wet his bed once per month and had not had spontaneous erections but did have sex and used Viagra.[58]On 14.6.2024 Sarah Greening-Steer, arranged for her sister-in-law, Mrs Sharp, to call e-sure, the Defendant’s insurers, posing as Sarah. She was present when the call was made. The attendance note of Mr Kenyon, who took the call, records that she told him that: the Claimant was a compulsive liar and a heavy marijuana user; they were in a custody battle; he was exaggerating his injuries; his memory was fine; his left shoulder was healed and his only issue was his leg when it was cold. He was “constantly working”; the business had new premises and the Claimant got the staff to call him “Gary” at work. The Claimant was nervous about being found out before trial. His business was struggling and he had a dodgy accountant.[59]On 7.7.2024 the Claimant was examined by Doctor Bodani a consultant psychiatrist, at his home. He interacted well and appropriately. The Claimant stated that he had bought a mobility scooter. He walked with a left sided limp and used a stick. I consider that this was an untrue physical representation of his capabilities. He asserted his son brought his daughter for contact or his ex-wife met him half-way. The Claimant admitted to mood swings, irritability, loneliness and sexual lack of confidence. He complained of poor sleep, difficulty getting out of bed, difficulty dressing first thing in the morning and leg spasms which could last an hour. He asserted that he watched TV most of the day (contradicting what he told others about being unable to concentrate on TV). He asserted that he could only drive short distances and had to stop after 20 minutes to relieve spasms. I find that to have been untrue.[60]In July 2024 the Claimant flew to Jamaica by aircraft for a holiday. He asserts that he travelled business class. The tickets do state “upper” class.[61]On 9.8.2024 Tessa Gough made her second visit to his house. Her report was dated October 2024. For many heads (ADL for instance) she did not clarify whether the statements and presentations were from 2022 or 2024. The Claimant told her that his mobility was very restricted and he had an unstructured day, other than his friend Jamie joining him for lunch or in the evening. He asserted that, due to balance issues, he used crutches and sticks. I do not accept this assertion was true because he had abandoned them after one of his falls, earlier. Miss Gough doubted this too, because he had not bought new ferrules and the ferrules on his crutches were not “worn”. The Claimant arose cautiously from his settee and had to stand still for a while to regain his balance. She saw spasms in his left leg as he stood. He claimed he could not feel his right leg save for burning pain at the bottom of his foot and the top of the leg (contradicting what he had told Mr Tromans). He claimed his left leg was very weak and he struggled to walk. I consider that those statements were untrue in the light of the videos of him walking normally and driving long distances before that date and after. He asserted that he had a mobility scooter which he used for his mobility but he avoided showing it to her. I find that he did not use a mobility scooter because he did not need to. The Claimant had just returned from holiday (in Jamaica). He asserted it was difficult to raise his foot on stairs. I find that to have been untrue in the light of his ability to step up and down on the tail lift of the fork-lift truck (see later in this set of findings) and into and out of the kit car (likewise, see later) and his ability to push the kit car and to walk without foot drop. The Claimant admitted being able to drive to Winchester. He reported that he struggled to hold cutlery in his RIGHT hand and his left hand was weaker, and he could not open jars and dropped things due to left hand spasm. In the light of the videos of the Claimant drinking beer with his left hand, opening van doors with it, holding petrol pump tubes, carrying bottles, snacks and phones, pushing the kit car and carrying boxes into clients’ restaurants, driving with both hands, operating a fork lift truck with it and handling heavy equipment, I find that those assertions were not true. He asserted that he wore his AFO. He was not wearing it when Ms Gough was there and he did not use an AFO in the surveillance videos.[62]During the height of summer, on 17.8.2024, Doctor Demitri Leschinskiy, a pain consultant, examined the Claimant in Brighton. The Claimant is recorded as saying that his right leg was the most troublesome issue with burning from hip to foot (contradicting his earlier assertion that he could not feel anything in most of that leg). He asserted that he had frequent spasms in the left arm and leg and violent shaking. He asserted his left arm had sensitivity above the elbow and became painful “on movement”. I find that to have been untrue. He complained of lower back pain (he had suffered no RTA related injury there). He reported that his neck had “improved after a few months” from the RTA and did not bother him much (contradicting earlier reports of considerable neck pain for years). The Claimant asserted he had only worked for 3 days after the RTA and had to stop due to memory difficulties (the length of his post-accident return to work is contradicted by the post-accident medical records). He asserted that he needed constant help with personal hygiene, which I find was untrue being contradicted by the medical and other records. He asserted that he could only drive an automatic car, which was untrue, but accepted driving long distances, which he said caused stiffness and difficulty getting out of the car. He asserted that he could only walk 100m unaided and then had to stop, which I find was untrue. On examination the Claimant was wearing his AFO and walked very slowly and unsteadily, which was a presentation which I find to have been faked. His neck was not tender, but was stiff. His left shoulder had 90% of the normal movement. His arms had no demonstrable sensory loss and no loss of muscle bulk and good movement save for left elbow flexion. He had reduced left hand grip. He exhibited objectively wasted left leg muscles by 4cm.[63]A call between the Claimant’s ex-wife and the Defendant’s solicitor was arranged for 5.9.2024. During that call Mrs Sharp, with Sarah Chilcott present, using Ms Chilcott’s mobile phone, told Mr McAleer of Keoghs that her maiden name was Chilcott and she gave her address and date of birth. She asserted that the Claimant had much more physical capability than he admitted. He had just bought a kit car for hill climbing, having sold his beach buggy and he went out on boats every weekend and still owned boats. He was trying to buy a flat in Gibraltar and had recently been to Jamaica, upper class. His business was in the last chance saloon according to his “dodgy” accountant and he still drove the works van and was a master manipulator.[64]On 22.10.2024 the Claimant’s ex-wife again spoke to Mr McAleer and recognised that she would be seen as a “woman scorned”. She confirmed that they were divorced and in a custody battle. He was arguing that he should have custody because he was well enough to care for their daughter. She asserted that the Claimant had come off painkillers early on, did not really want rehabilitation and wanted to get back to work. The injection had made his left shoulder better. She asserted that the Claimant was still hands on working in his business and using the company van. The Claimant was collecting his daughter from her every other Friday and returned her on Sunday (thus driving from Barton-on-Sea to the Reading area 4 times per weekend) “in a Bentley”. I find that she was clearly wrong about that car because by 2021 he had sold it. 2025[65]In February 2025 the Defendant disclosed the video surveillance evidence and applied for permission to rely upon it. The Claimant served evidence in response with the assistance of his lawyers in May 2025.[66]In September 2025 the Claimant transferred his one share in Chillin Trailers Ltd to Scott Wilson.[67]At some date in 2025 the Claimant’s retainer with his solicitors, Carol Nash, was terminated. He has continued to run the claim himself. He did not obtain updated reports on the surveillance videos from his medical experts or his care expert, but did obtain one from Mr Tromans. The Claimant’s company: BCR[68]BCR is still trading and employing admin staff and engineers. The Claimant is still the sole shareholder and director. The company moved to a new warehouse in March 2024. The Claimant helped with the move. There are many entries in the bank accounts of BCR showing the purchase of petrol and snacks at Hinton Service Station, which is the Claimant’s local service station. I was not satisfied by the Claimant’s explanation that none of those related to him. I find that he was using the company account to buy petrol. He was entitled to do so as a director, and this leads to the inference which I draw that he used at least some of that petrol for work purposes.

The Claimant’s evidence

[69]In his first witness statement dated 5.12.2023, with a statement of truth attached, the Claimant asserted that in October 2019 he had tried to return to work but could not work out how to operate the forklift truck. The video dated 14.3.2024 contradicts that assertion, at least a few years later. He asserted that he had worked for 1 hour and then had gone home. The medical notes and records contradict that assertion and report him as working part time in Reading, mainly but not wholly in administration, from the Autumn of 2019 through until around March 2020. The Claimant asserted that Jamie Jackson took him to the examination at Mr Kirkpatrick’s home-based clinic in Herefordshire (on 23.11.2022) and he struggled with the journey. He asserted that they stopped many times due to his leg spasms. What he did not disclose was that he himself drove after they stopped at Burger King in the Winchester service station for what he admitted in cross examination was about 50 miles, in his Aston Martin. This was shown on video. He stood on his legs at Burger King for many minutes without apparent discomfort. He did not seek a chair. Two days later he was out and about in the blue van opening the van door with his left hand and arm. He drove to London. Yet in his witness statement the Claimant did not disclose any of that. What he asserted was that the Defendant insisted on arranging expert examinations in London and that the 6 hour round trip was “not possible” due to leg pain. I find that this statement was not true, based on the video evidence. He chose to drive to London in his manual van twice, once on 27.9.2022 to Atlantic Road Brixton and again on 25.11.2022 to Belvedere Road, then returning home. The Claimant asserted that he took naps every day and only went out in the evenings for a few hours and was taken home or used a taxi. I do not accept that assertion in the light of the journeys to London which the Claimant chose to do alone and his driving in the works manual shift van.[70]As to walking, the Claimant wrote that he cannot walk far because his legs give way and he gets a terrible burning pain and that he wears a support brace. I do not accept the level of walking disability he asserts because he is shown walking a lot further on the videos in London. He is also not shown wearing the AFO, indeed in his evidence the Claimant asserted that he found the AFO uncomfortable, so did not wear it. In the witness statement he asserted that he fell 1-2 times per week. Whilst I accept that he suffered falls in the first year or two after the RTA, as recorded in the medical records, I do not accept his asserted frequency of falling thereafter. As to his left arm, the Claimant asserted that he could not open a jar or manage buttons or lift a shopping bag and his arm is hypersensitive. To one expert the Claimant asserted he could not have the passenger side window open in a car because of the hypersensitivity. Having seen the Claimant drive and push a kit car with both arms, carry bottles and snacks in his left hand, hold a petrol pump nozzle with both hands, untie a rope from the kit car, turn the forklift truck handle with his left hand, lift heavy objects into the back of the Luton van and open and shut a van door with his left arm, I do not accept the level of disability claimed. The Claimant asserted in the witness statement that he has no feeling or sensitivity in his right leg at all. I reject that assertion. He asserts that his right knee gives way, but on expert examination it had normal power, so I reject that assertion. He stated that he hired a cleaner in the summer of 2022 because he could not do it. The Claimant asserted that he needed his wife, then daughter to do his cleaning and then he paid for cleaners to clean his house. He has been able to do “less and less”. There is no medical evidence supporting any degeneration in the Claimant’s ISCI and I do not accept his assertion that he cannot clean, vacuum, wipe, dust, make beds or wash up or that his physical symptoms have worsened. I find that he can push a kit car, drive a manual van and an Aston Martin, load the rear of a Luton box van for 1.5 hours with heavy equipment, and he can bend over forwards without showing any pain or reluctance. The Claimant asserts that he struggles to cook and cannot grip pots and pans or chop. He seeks the costs of eating out. I reject those assertions as incompatible with the video evidence and the Defendant’s medical evidence. I find that he is physically able to cook. Finally, the Claimant asserted in the witness statement that he could only drive short distances of a couple of minutes. I consider that this was untrue, as shown on the videos.[71]Since the RTA the Claimant has consistently asserted that he cannot work. He asserts that Charris Byrne and Alisa run the company and he draws no salary and no dividends. What he did not do in the witness statement was disclose his trips to London to see clients, his regular driving of the company works van and his movement of the equipment from his old warehouse to his new warehouse on 14.3.2024.[72]In his first witness statement he asserted that “Nicola” did his general paperwork because he could not manage it. In his second witness statement, dated 8.1.2025, drafted with the assistance of his then lawyers, the Claimant asserted that he no longer could deal with his own paperwork and his girl friend “Sarah” or friend Jamie did it all.[73]In his final witness statement, dated 29.5.2025, the Claimant explained the surveillance evidence. He gave considerable detail of each trip seen on the videos. For instance, he sought to explain how stiff he was getting out of the works van having driven to London. He could not explain why he had told Doctor Jacobson that he had driven up to the appointment that very day, when in fact he had stayed over in a hotel in Marylebone the night before (at the Defendant’s expense). He admitted that he had smoked cannabis the night before the appointment and drunk a lot and was not “feeling great”. He stated that one of the medico-legal experts (Doctor Bodani) had prescribed the medical cannabis for him and that he had become dependent and that he drank too much to relieve the pain. However, in the next line he stated he had become dependent on cannabis since 2020. Doctor Bodani had examined him first on 7.7.2024 so that timescale is not correct. The Claimant sought to explain the gross incongruity between his walking when going into the Defendant’s medico-legal examination and his mobility afterwards at a pub in Kennington. His explanation was that it “takes me time to get going in the morning as I am very stiff”. I reject that explanation of his different presentation to Dr Jacobson as untrue and find that he was grossly exaggerating his mobility restrictions with Doctor Jacobson. The Claimant’s explanation of his ability to push the MAC1 kit car off the road when it broke down (on video) was that the surface was flat. He arranged for a photo to be taken of his daughter pushing it to show how easy it was. I consider this evidence to be wholly unpersuasive. There are various points arising from the kit car surveillance:(1) I consider that a man with the Claimant’s reported uncontrollable and unpredictable left leg spasms, left leg weakness, left arm hypersensitivity and left hand weakness, such that he cannot open his fingers in Court or walk his dog, would not be able safely to drive such a kit car on a public highway;(2) would not be able to push such a kit car onto the grassy central reservation with no apparent spasms or pain;(3) would not be able to stand around waiting for help for such a long time without spasms and pain;(4) would not be able to hop in and out of the kit car so normally and freely. Perhaps the most unimpressive explanation was the one the Claimant gave for the drive to his new and then his old business warehouses and the loading of the Luton box van. He asserted that having driven there (70 miles) in the company (manual shift) van, picked up the Luton box van (manual shift), done 1.5 hours of forklift truck driving with lifting and carrying, and then driven home (another 70 miles) in the company van, he was in agony and had to rest. He asserted that the video “clearly shows that my body is rapidly tiring”. I did my very best to try to see evidence of that rapid tiring but wholly failed to find any.[74]In his evidence I found the Claimant to be fully up to speed, clever, tendentious and a master of tiny details provided by explanation. He sought to dodge difficult issues by dissemination. His explanations, many of which were unlikely, were colourful and detailed. He explained in detail how his trips to London (to customers) were not business but were to deliver presents. His trip to a restaurant customer in Bournemouth was likewise to deliver a remote control (in a large box) to a friend who would drop in there and pick it up. I reject all of those and find that he was travelling to company customers on company business in the company van. He made an obvious effort not to use his left arm or hand at all in the witness box and on two occasions showed how very difficult it was for him to open his clenched left hand. It took over 10 seconds and the fingers never became straight. Comparing that behaviour with the normal and free use of his left hand in the surveillance videos was part of the evidence which convinced me of his malingering. His detailed attempts to explain how easy it was to push the broken down kit car were also unimpressive in the light of his many complaints of his inability to use his left arm or hand or leg due to erratic spasms. When faced, in cross-examination, with his statements to the many medical experts that he was seriously disabled and unable to walk or to drive far, he blamed them for mis-recording what he said. I do not accept that they did. When faced with the lack of left foot drop on the surveillance videos, he sought to persuade me that the camera angle was the problem. I find that it was not a camera angle issue, he had no foot drop and the medical experts so advised in their live evidence. His walking distance reporting was examined in detail in cross-examination and his answers were deeply unsatisfactory. He could not logically explain why he did not wear the AFO, if he needed it for left foot drop and sought to persuade the Court that it was uncomfortable. He had no explanation for failing to tell the experts that he had driven alone to London in his Aston Martin and the company blue van, many times, or that the blue works van he drove was a manual shift. He could not explain why he had told no one that he had worked for 1.5 hours carrying and moving heavy and bulky equipment into a Luton Box van and driven the box van and forklift truck at his own company warehouse after driving 60-70 miles there and then he had driven home. He was unembarrassed when counsel disclosed his untruths sent via his solicitors that he was unable to attend Doctor Cockerell’s examination on 14.3.2024 for want of someone to accompany him. He had refused to attend then spent the day at work loading the Luton van. He sought to distance himself from his own PIP application by saying that “Ravi” provided the information to the DWP, but then admitted that all the information given over the phone came from him because he was present and feeding it to Ravi.[75]Having compared his evidence to the documents and the medical experts’ reports I conclude that the Claimant has been a regular, detailed, unembarrassed liar, with the aim of gaining higher damages than he is honestly entitled to. He has lied about the sequellae of his TBI and his ISCI. The main areas of untruth are: his mobility, his pain, his spasms, his strength, his ability to drive, his concentration, his memory, his fatigue, his urinary urgency, his ability to work, his sexual functioning, his smell and taste, his balance, his pain and his foot drop.

The Claimant’s other lay evidence

[76]The Claimant relied on evidence from his ex-wife, Ms Sarah Chillcot. She provided a witness statement dated 28.5.2025. She described his injuries as life changing and asserted that he could no longer work “at the intensity that he had before”. Despite what I set out below and above, I accept that assertion as well worded and apposite. She also asserted that he used cannabis and cocaine heavily. In the witness box counsel put to her that she had made the phone calls to esure and Keoghs in 2024 (set out above) and she flatly denied, more than 10 times, speaking to either organisation and denied the detail of the conversations. Then, later, when shown the attendance notes, with her phone number, address and details, she cracked and admitted that she had asked her sister-in-law to make the calls and had been present for each call. That was a remarkable admission. Then she flipped around and sought to convince the Court that the content which she had given in the phone calls was untrue. Ms Chillcot eventually sought to say that she had lied to esure and Keoghs and in fact the Claimant was seriously injured and she only said those lies because she was in a custody dispute with the Claimant at the time. I shall therefore treat Ms Chillcot’s evidence with suspicion. She was not a witness who had any proper understanding of how important it is, having given an oath, to tell the truth in Court. However, for reasons which are apparent in my findings above, there are factual waypoints in the detail of her assertions to esure and Keoghs which resonate with my findings of dishonesty by the Claimant.[77]The Claimant called Jamie Jackson, a friend who is a car mechanic and business owner. His live evidence was tendentious and partial towards the Claimant. He described the Claimant’s brain injury as “like dementia” and described how the Claimant could not walk far. He did not assert that the Claimant cannot cook, he wrote that the Claimant is not a good cook. He asserted that the Claimant avoids busy loud places, yet they go weekly to a pub quiz night. He described taking the Claimant to the examination by Mr Kirkpatrick but omitted to mention that the Claimant drove at least 50 miles of that journey in the Aston Martin. He asserted that the Claimant’s mobility was deteriorating and that he needed a bungalow and assisted travel. He omitted to mention their joint trip to Gibraltar with no assistance. In cross examination he admitted that he knew the Claimant could drive on his own to London and back. It was put to him that in his witness statement he was seeking to give the impression that the Claimant needed to take taxis home because he could not drive such distances. He responded that he was explaining that the Claimant did not drink and drive. That was tendentious. He accepted that he failed to correct the statements made by the Claimant to Mr Kirkpatrick, in his presence, that he could only walk 10-20 metres. He sought to avoid responsibility by saying that he did not hear the Claimant say that and that he did not hear the Claimant say anything untrue to Mr Kirkpatrick. When pressed he accepted that the Claimant could stand on his left leg and walk extended distances and did not always wear an AFO.[78]Scott Wilson was called for the Claimant. His evidence was evasive and unsatisfactory. They set up Chillin Trailers Ltd after the RTA and took equal shares and the Claimant was a co-director. He sought to persuade the Court that the reason for this was that they had generated the idea together however, all the Claimant was going to contribute was that his company, BCR, would service the trailers. Wilson bought the trailers. What he could not explain was why a simple maintenance service contractor should be an equal shareholder in the business. I was unimpressed by his evidence and found his explanations to be partial in favour of the Claimant and unreliable.

The expert evidence

[79]Each of the Claimant’s expert medico-legal witnesses accepted the Claimant’s reporting and presentation of the severity of his symptoms. Each provided a report on his injuries and their sequellae. Each provided a diagnosis, an opinion on causation and a prognosis which was supportive and advised on his long-term needs. I shall not spend much time summarising these opinions because they were all undermined by the Claimant’s failure to obtain updated reports from the experts on the surveillance videos.[80]Mr Tromans reported in September 2022. He listed the injuries and the treatment provided to the Claimant. On examination he found patchy sensation on the right at C3 and on the abdomen and at C6 on both legs and he stated that the left sided sensation was normal. I contrast that finding with the Claimant’s regular complaints of altered left sided sensation. He found no reflexes in the Claimant's legs and brisk left arm reflexes with a positive Hoffman’s sign. He found slightly increased tone on the left but found that the arm power was four out of five on the left and five out of five on the right. He found a full range of shoulder movement, poor left-hand dexterity and reduced power in both legs, more on the left than on the right. He noted the Claimant needed a friend to rise from a chair, dragged his left leg, plodded with his right leg and had no left arm swing. He noted bladder and bowel complaints but he noted that the Claimant could ejaculate. He noted the Claimant's complaints that his limbs went rigid and spasmed, particularly when he coughed. He noted the Claimant’s complaints of headaches, right leg burning sensations and the hypersensitivity of his left shoulder. He provided the opinion that, despite the Claimant’s complaints of bladder urgency, he had a safe bladder. He noted some bowel constipation and in relation to his complaints about sexual function Mr Tromans noted he had prior issues and was using Viagra before the RTA. Otherwise, Mr Tromans accepted the Claimant’s complaints of reduced mobility, spasticity and pain and advised he needed care workers to manage his home and assistance for shopping, laundry, gardening, DIY and in the kitchen and that this need would increase in his 50s and 60s as he became more restricted. He advised the Claimant needed a mobility scooter, sticks and single storey accommodation. He advised the Claimant was unable to work. In a follow up letter in July 2022 he advised that all medico-legal experts should visit the Claimant at home because it was not appropriate for the Claimant to travel long distances. In June 2024 Mr Tromans alleged that the Claimant's left sided sensation was normal but he lacked the sensation of hot and cold in his right shoulder. He provided pretty much the same opinion in this report. In September 2024 he reviewed the reports of other experts and maintained his opinion.[81]In their joint orthopaedic report Mr Tromans and Mr Kirkpatrick stated in October 2024, before the service of the videos, that they agreed that the Claimant had severely impaired mobility and reduced walking distance and as a result had a wide range of needs arising from those sequel.[82]Mr Tromans was shown the videos and provided his final report in February 2026. He read the Claimant’s explanatory witness statement dated May 2025. He accepted the videos showed better mobility, stability and gait than “anticipated”. He altered his opinion, but only slightly. He advised that ISCI produces spasticity which is usually worse in the morning and when fatigue sets in. He was unable to assess the neurogenic pain or spasticity from the videos. He advised, based on the videos, that the Claimant can do some work, but not full-time work. He considered the Claimant still had significant disability despite the videos. He maintained his opinion that the Claimant had bladder, bowel and sexual function difficulties, with spasticity in the cold but advised that he was not dependent on walking aids. He warned that things would get worse in the cold and when ageing. He considered the Claimant still had domestic needs.[83]Mr Tromans was carefully cross examined by Mr Woodhouse KC and admitted on several occasions that the only explanation for the difference between how the Claimant presented himself to the medical experts and the Claimant’s mobility and activity levels in the videos was conscious exaggeration. He then abandoned his support for any need for care until late old age and any need for domestic assistance (save for DIY and gardening). He deconstructed the Claimant’s asserted reason, given in live evidence, for his severely disabled presentation. He advised that anxiety could not be the cause of the exaggerated disability. He admitted that no one had shown him the Claimant’s schedule of loss. He advised that the Claimant’s distance walking in London after a long drive was evidence that the Claimant had grossly and deliberately exaggerated his disability to Mr Tromans. He advised that the Claimant is able to take gainful employment but should not climb ladders.[84]Doctor Shetty is a pain consultant who reported on the instructions of the Claimant’s lawyers in June 2023. He set out the Claimant’s complaints of symptoms which I have dealt with above and the Claimant’s complaints of very reduced activities of daily living, including being unable to use a knife for cutting food, needing to use one crutch for mobility, being limited in driving to 30 minutes and avoiding all air travel. (I find that those statements were untrue.) He supported the Claimant’s claim and considered that the symptoms were caused by the RTA. In a joint report, which he provided in February 2025, with Doctor Leschinskiy, before the videos were served, they agreed that the Claimant suffered neuropathic pain and weakness and had mobility issues but that there was a considerable psychological element to the presentation. They considered that the Claimant had vulnerability to somatic complaints before the RTA. Doctor Shetty advised that the pain was neurogenic, whereas Doctor Leschinskiy did not accept the level of disability displayed by the Claimant, noting that the Claimant took very few painkillers, could drive, had been working on a beach buggy towards racing it and that these activities were inconsistent with the level of pain reported. He noted that the Claimant had pre-existing lower back pain and advised the Claimant was substantially over reporting his pain. He also took into account the failed neuropsychological tests and advised that this “may indicate” that the Claimant was intentionally exaggerating his symptoms. Doctor Shetty advised in the joint report that the Claimant needed hydrotherapy and maybe pain management. Doctor Leschinskiy did not advise either. Doctor Shetty advised the outcome long term was dependent on the psychiatric prognosis, whereas Doctor Leschinskiy advised that the symptoms would reduce to minimal within two to three years. Doctor Shetty considered the Claimant was incapable of working, whereas Doctor Leschinskiy considered he was capable of sedentary work. One crucial aspect of the joint report is that both pain experts agreed that, to advise properly, pain experts are reliant on the veracity of the evidence given to them by the Claimant.[85]Doctor Allder, a consultant neurologist, reported in March 2024 for the Claimant. He accepted the Claimant’s reports and complaints of disability to a large extent. He diagnosed a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury with a wide range of sequelae. In the joint report with Doctor Cockerell, provided in November 2024, they disagreed on the length of post traumatic amnesia. Doctor Allder thought it might be 24 hours whereas Doctor Cockerell thought that any PTA was unlikely and advised that the Claimant was an unreliable complainant. They agreed the unambiguous damage shown on the radiological scans. They agreed that the Claimant had chronic neck stiffness, complained of sensation changes below the clavicle, had a weak left leg and left arm and had suffered frozen left shoulder, muscle spasms provoked by cold and also complained of bladder and bowel symptoms. They agreed he had suffered changes in smell and taste, headaches, fatigue, sleep disturbance, noise intolerance, light sensitivity, reduced memory, concentration, decision making and speech disturbance. They disagreed on the causation. Doctor Cockerell considered the cause of these symptoms was psychological, whereas Doctor Allder attributed them to the RTA. Doctor Cockerell left the decision on the Claimant’s credibility to the Court and Doctor Allder stated he noted nothing that concerned him about credibility. Doctor Allder's prognosis was that the Claimant would not get better, whereas Doctor Cockerell’s prognosis was that recovery had taken place, so his current state was permanent. They agreed there was an increased risk of epilepsy, but it was likely to be controlled by drugs.[86]John Reynard, a consultant urological surgeon, reported for the Claimant in April 2024. He accepted that the Claimant had disturbed bladder function and loss of sexual sensation caused by the spinal injury. He did not think that the symptoms from the bladder would worsen. He advised the Claimant to return to his GP to get a different prescription and considered that a combination of Solifenacin and Mirabegron would reduce his urinary urgency within two weeks. If that did not work then, in future, Botox injections were a possible treatment but they had risky side effects. He advised Cialis or Viagra for the Claimant’s sexual symptoms. In the joint urology report, provided with Julian Shah, the Defendant’s consultant urological surgeon, dated October 2024, they agreed that the Claimant had pre-accident erectile dysfunction which was probably of psychological cause. They noted the December 2019 urodynamics study and that the Claimant had taken Solifenacin and Viagra and his symptoms were much improved. They agreed the Claimant had disturbed bladder function and some loss of sexual sensation caused by the spinal damage and they agreed that the bladder dysfunction was unlikely to worsen. They described the bladder dysfunction as minor.[87]Doctor Richard Maddicks, a chartered psychologist and consultant clinical neuropsychologist, reported for the Claimant in June 2024. He considered that the Claimant had suffered cognitive disturbance, noting the early testing of his cognition in June and July 2019, which had improved until the end of July 2019, at which time the Claimant reported no cognitive difficulties. He categorised the brain injury as probably mild unless the Claimant had suffered lengthy PTA, in which case it would be in the moderate to severe categorisation. However, his psychometric testing of the Claimant was confounded by the Claimant failing the tests of performance validity. Therefore, he could not provide an expert opinion on reduction of cognitive functioning and advised caution should be exercised in interpreting the Claimant’s self-reported difficulties. He then gave advice suggesting that the Claimant was unable to take on manual work because of his physical difficulties, but this was outside his field of expertise. He noted that the Claimant had not engaged well with psychological therapy. In the joint neuropsychology report provided with Professor Kemp, in October 2024, they agreed that the Claimant had low-average ability before the accident. They agreed the Claimant's medical records showed a significant past history of psychological or psychiatric disorders, including anxiety and depression, linked to work stress and marital difficulties, for which he had received some treatment. They noted that the Claimant had under-reported his pre-accident mental health history. They agreed that the Claimant suffered either a complicated mild or moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, with other injuries. They agreed it was not possible to obtain a reliable evaluation of his PTA due to psychological issues and probably non-credible responding. Professor Kemp considered the early MOCA cognitive screening tests results were very low and not validated post-accident and that the Claimant had not presented to his GP with cognitive complaints after the accident. They both raised the fact that the Claimant had failed symptom validity and performance validity tests. Therefore, the standard neuropsychological tests carried out to assess his cognitive dysfunction were invalidated, so it was likely that he was over reporting his symptoms and difficulties. Although Doctor Maddicks was more cautious, both agreed it was ultimately a matter for the court to determine whether the Claimant was deliberately exaggerating or malingering. However, they both agreed that the severity of the original brain injury would be likely to lead to some neurocognitive difficulties. Professor Kemp considered them to be mild at worst and Doctor Maddicks noted the variability in cognitive functioning post-accident. On causation they agreed that it is likely that the Claimant has suffered some level of cognitive impairment but that his complaints are likely to be multifactorial, arising from his physical injuries, psychological upset with some brain injury contribution which is difficult or impossible to quantify, given the Claimant’s presentation. They deferred to the psychiatrists for medical treatment and disagreed on whether there was a need for further neuropsychological treatment. Doctor Maddicks considered that the Claimant had not received enough neuropsychological rehabilitation, whereas Professor Kemp considered the Claimant had received good multidisciplinary follow-up care at a pain clinic and through case managers. He advised no further vocational or neuropsychological rehabilitation. Doctor Maddicks recognised the Claimant’s lack of engagement with clinical neuropsychology made further rehabilitation difficult to assess. They agreed that the effects of the RTA prevented the Claimant returning to his pre-injury work, but were not able to provide a prognosis on his residual work capacity with any clarity. Professor Kemp saw no neuropsychological reason why the Claimant could not resume work, whereas Doctor Maddicks was unable to advise on whether the brain injury reduced his work capacity. He stated that fatigue, pain, sleep disorder and psychological adjustment were likely to have contributed to his inability to work since the accident. They deferred to others on the physical effects of the accident. They both considered that the Claimant had capacity to manage his finances and legal affairs. Doctor Maddicks considered he was disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 whereas Professor Kemp found no neuro psychological reasons to classify him as disabled.[88]Doctor Bodani is a consultant neuropsychiatrist who reported for the Claimant in September 2024. He noted the Claimant self-discharged from Poole hospital in mid-July 2019, explaining to the nursing staff he had issues at home which he needed to sort out. On the self-discharge form he had written “due to bad food”. Had he not discharged he would have proceeded to the specialist spinal rehab unit in Salisbury for further inpatient rehabilitation. Thereafter, he had outpatient rehabilitation at Salisbury and pain management under Doctor Burn. Doctor Bodani noted the Claimant complained of pain but, despite his complaints of mood disturbance, he had not been diagnosed with depression or treated for depression. Doctor Bodani advised that there were no signs of post-traumatic stress disorder in hospital and he was not referred to the liaison psychiatric services at either hospital. He noted that after the accident the Claimant was seen by Doctor Young-Raybold, a neuropsychologist, in 2023 and had four therapy sessions up to early 2024. Reviewing the pre-accident GP records, Doctor Bodani noted anger and marital disharmony in 2004 and 2015, with a stabbing in 2015 and high alcohol consumption. In 2016 his child had been put under a child protection plan and the Claimant had been referred to anger management. In 2018 the Claimant was noted as back together with his wife but the relationship was not working. He had thoughts of self-harm. He had suffered a troubled marriage for many years and mentioned recreational drug use by his wife and physical aggression towards him. He was prescribed Sertralin at that time. The Claimant described to Doctor Bodani pre-accident irritability and difficulty in his marriage. Post-accident he described loneliness and fragility, due to his erectile dysfunction and isolation. He described very limited activities of daily living, struggling to get out of bed due to lack of sleep, leg spasms in the morning and long days watching TV at home. He felt physically fragile and that he could not do anything. He described a happy childhood with a successful father, who ran a refrigeration business, who then suffered a severe RTA when the Claimant was aged 5 and later died in 2015 due to an infection from a brain shunt put in after the RTA. He had no relationship with his living mother. The Claimant was frustrated after the RTA because he could not continue with his high-octane stock car racing, quad bike racing and jet skiing and by his inability to return to work due to his memory difficulties. The lack of structure at work took away his self-respect. He denied ever taking recreational drugs (contradicted by other evidence) and asserted he only drank half a pint of alcohol because he couldn't tolerate more because of his neurological condition (contradicted by other evidence). He claimed he could only drive his Aston Martin for short distances and after 20 minutes had to stop to walk to relieve the pain (contradicted by the surveillance videos). He complained of physical pain. Doctor Bodani gave a supportive opinion of a moderately severe traumatic brain injury, depression reactionary to his changed lifestyle and reduced capabilities and the pain he was suffering. He did not diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder because the Claimant could not recall the accident, but did diagnose that the Claimant had some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Overall, he diagnosed a severe, permanent, irreversible brain injury with some scope for targeted rehabilitation by a multidisciplinary team for two years including high-quality neuro psychiatric input.[89]Doctor Bodani provided a joint report with Doctor Jacobson in November 2024, before the surveillance videos were disclosed. They considered that the Claimant sustained a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury on the Mayo classification but had different views about malingering.[90]Jane James provided a care report to advise on the Claimant’s care and equipment needs. She was never asked to update it after the surveillance videos were served. She met the Claimant first on 9.5.2023 at his home. She was told by the Claimant that his wife had left him within 6 month after the RTA (which was not correct). She thought that he was a good historian who struggled to recall some dates and details. The Claimant asserted that he still had frozen shoulder (which I do not accept); he could not tolerate standing still (which was untrue, see for instance the Gibraltar trip); he struggled to walk without his AFO (which was untrue, see all of the videos); he furniture walked at home (which was a gross exaggeration); he walked “very short distances outside” (which was untrue); he did not use mobility aids (which I accept); he suffered uncontrollable painful spasms on the left side triggered “when he moved” (which was untrue); his driving was limited to short distances (which was untrue); he no longer went abroad on holidays but only to Newquay; his business was in the process of being liquidated (that did not happen). As a result of this presentation she assessed that he needed: urgent single level accommodation, care for life, domestic support, dog walking support, DIY and gardening support, a mobility scooter, hoist, disability equipment, OT for life, and assistance on holidays. I have seen no joint care report.

Defendant’s medical experts

[91]Whilst I have summarised the Claimant’s expert evidence and the joint reports provided before service of the surveillance evidence above, I will now turn to the Defendant's medical experts, all of whom gave final reports covering all of the available evidence including the surveillance videos.[92]Mr Kirkpatrick, a consultant neurosurgeon, first reported in August 2024 instructed by the Defendant. I have set out what the Claimant told him above. On examination he found the Claimant had abnormal gait on the left-hand side with spasticity, declared myopathy in all limbs and the Claimant was stiff and slow to move, with spasms on the left hand side. He found increased tone in the left leg and clonus at the left knee. He found the power of the left leg was three out of five and of the right leg was 4+ out of five. He found the power of the left arm was 4 out of five and the right arm was 4+ out of five. He found absent pinprick sensation on the right-hand side and impaired on the left-hand side. He found normal left leg sensation. In his opinion the Claimant had suffered the diagnosed injuries set out at the start of this judgment. The Claimant had been given extensive physical rehabilitation and had recovered from his initial tetraplegia with physiotherapy and occupational therapy. He accepted the remaining spasticity, neuropathic pain, distress and aesthesia together with a subtle brain injury. He questioned whether there was functional overlay in the Claimant's presentation and deferred to the psychiatrists. He did not think the symptoms would improve but did advise that they would degrade with time in his late 60s or early 70s. He did not think the Claimant had the capacity for gainful employment.[93]After reviewing the video evidence Mr Kirkpatrick reported again in July 2025. He changed his opinion. He advised that the videos showed the Claimant was far more capable than he had described to Mr Kirkpatrick and other experts. He considered the Claimant was very competent and durable on his feet, with good walking pace and balance and no physical requirements needed to support him. He had good standing duration and normal driving capacity. He had driven a variety of vehicles. He advised that driving an Aston Martin is a challenging experience and that kit cars often have heavy clutches. He advised that the Claimant demonstrated manual dexterity and competence with his left hand far better than he had described. So, he advised that the Claimant had capacity for all activities of daily living, including some heavy manual work. He noted the Claimant manually handled a sack barrow with good coordination and advised that such activity was wholly incompatible with the description the Claimant had given to Mr Kirkpatrick. Therefore, Mr Kirkpatrick advised that the Claimant was capable of quite heavy manual work, full time. The video showing the Claimant pushing a car, in a low posture, with his arms extended and feet dorsiflexed, was a difficult manoeuvre for somebody with disabling spasticity, because it would induce spasms, in his opinion. He also noted the Claimant did not wear any AFO brace. He stated that stretching muscles with spasticity induced spasms. The walking and driving longer distances contrasted starkly with the reports the Claimant had made to him. He advised specifically that neurological difficulties caused by spinal cord injury would not wax and wane. The only element of good days and bad days arising from them would be subtle. He accepted early morning stiffness but noted that the video showed the Claimant out in the early mornings, driving the works van long distances, which did not match the Claimant’s complaints. He noted the Claimant wearing summer shorts and slip on shoes with no AFO, which did not match the complaints of spinal cord injury sequelae. Therefore, Mr Kirkpatrick advised that by 2022 the Claimant had reached his permanent plateau state. He commented that the complaints of urinary incontinence did not match the long driving videos or the videos of him drinking. Mr Kirkpatrick advised that the Claimant can work lengthy days and travel long distances and can engage in some heavy manual work, full time. He advised that the real residual symptoms are relatively minor and that the Claimant has substantially exaggerated his symptoms. He advised specifically that he considered the Claimant had consciously exaggerated his symptoms looking at the video dated 18th August 2023 of the Claimant going to the examination by Doctor Jacobson and exiting and then going to Kennington Road to the pub. Mr Kirkpatrick was of the opinion that the Claimant is malingering to enhance the value of his claim. He considered that the schedule of loss grossly exaggerates the Claimant’s current and future disabilities and needs. He advised there is no risk of neurological deterioration, although the Claimant’s disability may increase with age due to muscle weakness. He advised that the Claimant does not need any care and that the risk of syrinx in the spine has passed. He also advised that, at work, the Claimant could delegate heavy lifting to others.[94]Doctor Dimitri Leszczynski, the Defendant’s pain expert, first advised in October 2024. In his opinion the Claimant gave a very detailed account of matters which did not match with any substantially reduced cognition. As to his left arm sensitivity, the expert noted a high dose of Gabapentin and Morphine after the initial spinal operation about which the Claimant reported he obtained no benefit. Thereafter, the Claimant took Paracetamol and Gabapentin but reduced that merely to Anadin, therefore the Doctor advised that the Claimant’s pain must be mild. He considered that the Claimant has made an excellent neurological recovery and had been fit to drive since September 2019, according to his own GP. At that time he was walking and working towards buggy racing. Doctor Leszczynski found no hypersensitivity of the left arm on examination, which was inconsistent with the Claimant’s reports of such. He found clear evidence of left leg muscle wasting. He noted the incongruity between the Claimant’s presentation, being unsteady on his feet and unable to stand on tiptoe or heel walk and using a left leg arthrosis, compared to his admitted ability to drive an automatic car. His right leg complaints were inconsistent with that driving ability too. Overall, the Doctor found that the Claimant's level of dysfunction at presentation was higher than his assessment of it. I have summarised the joint report above. In his final report, in September 2025, having reviewed the surveillance videos, Doctor Leszczynski firmed up his original opinion. He advised that the Claimant had made a good recovery. He observed virtually normal function on most occasions on the videos. He advised that the Claimant walked with no limp or only a very slight limp on certain occasions and drove a manual works van and a kit car without any particular difficulty. He pointed out the Claimant’s dramatic account of his attempt to return to work after the accident in his December 2023 witness statement. The Claimant had asserted he had to be driven to his warehouse and broke down in tears upon arrival. He considered that probably that explanation was grossly exaggerated in the light of the video showing him loading a Luton box van. He pointed out the inconsistency between what the Claimant told Mr Tromans in June 2022 and how he presented with difficulties getting up from a sitting position compared to the September 2022 video of him walking with only a slight limp and no obvious limitation, then driving a manual van and using his mobile phone in his hands. He was particularly unimpressed by the Claimant’s presentation to Doctor Shetty on the video taken by that expert. He pointed out the inconsistency between the Claimant’s reports of limited walking and driving and the long drives to London and walking in London in the videos. He pointed out that the Claimant had told him that he could only drive an automatic car but on the videos he had driven a manual van. He placed some importance on the video of the Claimant pushing the kit car off the road, which he considered involved strenuous effort without any sign of pain or distress. He was not convinced that the Claimant needed any assistance at all at present or in future. He considered the Claimant had recovered almost completely from his injuries. He took into account that many claimants and patients over report their symptoms, but considered that the gap between the reality and the reporting was too large in this case for the reporting to be genuine. He also advised that the long-distance driving seemed incongruent with somebody suffering a weak bladder with urgency. He considered that the Claimant was basically leading a normal life and appeared to be working, walking around and driving normally. He also noted that the Claimant went to Jamaica on holiday in the summer of 2024 around the time he himself examined the Claimant. He considered the Claimant fit for activities of daily living including household chores.[95]Doctor Jacobson, a consultant psychiatrist, reported for the Defendant in September 2025 and June 2024. In his first report he diagnosed a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury on the Mayo classification scale. He noted a good recovery from the TBI and then subsequent reports of deterioration by the time of the second INA (initial needs assessment) in January 2023 with Miss Silva. He pointed out the unreliability of many aspects of the Claimant’s reporting and his failure of performance validity tests. He considered whether the Claimant had a chronic pain syndrome, but only if the court found the Claimant to be credible. He considered the diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain but dismissed that diagnosis. He noted the opinion of Professor Kemp, that at most the Claimant had mild enduring cognitive symptoms. He diagnosed chronic fluctuating depression, with anxiety, but considered the Claimant was not depressed at interview. He noted some sub-clinical organic personality change. He pointed out that the Claimant had been non-compliant on multiple occasions and had displayed aggression. He pointed out the pre-accident high alcohol consumption, anger issues, being a victim of violence, high workload, marital stress and disharmony. He also pointed out the potential for unconscious or conscious exaggeration within the claim. He thought that the Claimant probably needed further pain management and psychological assistance and assessment by a neuropsychiatrist. He considered that but for the accident the Claimant had a 50% chance of recurrent depression in any event. Likewise, he had a pre-accident vulnerability to anxiety which he put at 50%. He advised that the risk in future of depression and anxiety was raised as a result of the RTA. He advised on reduced life expectation with various caveats. He considered that the Claimant had the capacity to manage his affairs and the litigation.[96]Having seen the surveillance videos Doctor Jacobson reported for the last time in September 2025. He noted that the Claimant could walk well, at normal speed, with only a slight limp on the September 2022 videos. Arising from the other videos he advised that the Claimant can bend, carry parcels, move large goods in warehouses, drive long distances, drive kit cars and sit for reasonable periods. He noted the sharp contrast in the Claimant’s gait as he entered Keats House, where Doctor Jacobson examined him on the 18th of August 2023, alongside the normal gait in Kennington Road at the pub soon afterwards. Doctor Jacobson considered the major inconsistencies between the Claimant’s reported symptoms and presentation and the videos. He pointed out that the Claimant had told him in August 2023 that the Claimant had driven up from Christchurch that very morning. That was untrue. He considered that the Claimant must have known when reporting to him that the facts he was presenting were untrue at the time of the interview. He commented that the Claimant reported constant difficulties in his motor function, personal and domestic activities and ability to work. He advised that the assertion that he had good and bad days, allowing him to behave as shown on the videos, did not match with his presentation to medical legal experts. He changed his earlier opinions. He considered it difficult, if not impossible, to establish when genuine neuropsychiatric disorder as a result of the accident ceased and when conscious exaggeration took over. Whilst he stated that there may be a lesser degree of neurological disability than reported, he was no longer certain if and when the Claimant had depressive episodes, anxiety or personality change, after the RTA. He advised that fatigue was not a significant limiting factor. Doctor Jacobson no longer advised any neuropsychiatric treatment was needed. He no longer supported multidisciplinary treatment, a case manager or a support worker. He considered that if the Court found the Claimant was working in March 2024 then the Claimant appeared to be fit for full time work of the type seen in the warehouse, loading the Luton box van.[97]I take into account the final opinions of Doctor Cockerell and Professor Kemp and their evidence but do not need to summarise it here. I will refer to Tessa Gough’s evidence within the quantum section.[98]Mr Julian Shah a consultant urological surgeon, gave various reports and a joint report and then live evidence. Suffice to say he updated his opinion as a result of the most recent urodynamics survey of the Claimant’s bladder and advised that he will need a change in prescription and annual follow ups. The figures are set out below. The Claimant’s bladder has gotten a little worse.

Assessment of the expert witnesses

[99]I was favourably impressed by all of the Defendant’s experts. I accept their evidence. As for Mr Tromans’ evidence, I consider that he should have set out his true opinions on malingering in his last report, rather than waiting until cross examination to reveal them to the Court.

The Law

[100]Pursuant S.s 57(1)(b), (2) and (3) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, the Court is required to dismiss a claim, despite finding that the Claimant is entitled to “honest” damages, where the Claimant has been “fundamentally dishonest” in relation to the primary claim or a related claim. “57 Personal injury claims: cases of fundamental dishonesty(1) This section applies where, in proceedings on a claim for damages in respect of personal injury (“the primary claim”)— (a) the court finds that the claimant is entitled to damages in respect of the claim, but (b) on an application by the defendant for the dismissal of the claim under this section, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has beenfundamentally dishonest in relation to the primary claim or a related claim.(2) The court must dismiss the primary claim, unless it is satisfied that the claimant would suffer substantial injustice if the claim were dismissed.(3) The duty under subsection (2) includes the dismissal of any element of the primary claim in respect of which the claimant has not been dishonest.(4) The court's order dismissing the claim must record the amount of damages that the court would have awarded to the claimant in respect of the primary claim but for the dismissal of the claim.(5) When assessing costs in the proceedings, a court which dismisses a claim under this section must deduct the amount recorded in accordance with subsection (4) from the amount which it would otherwise order the claimant to pay in respect of costs incurred by the defendant.(6) If a claim is dismissed under this section, subsection (7) applies to— (a) any subsequent criminal proceedings against the claimant in respect of the fundamental dishonesty mentioned in subsection (1)(b), and (b) any subsequent proceedings for contempt of court against the claimant in respect of that dishonesty.(7) If the court in those proceedings finds the claimant guilty of an offence or of contempt of court, it must have regard to the dismissal of the primary claim under this section when sentencing the claimant or otherwise disposing of the proceedings.(8) In this section— “claim” includes a counter-claim and, accordingly, “claimant” includes a counter-claimant and “defendant” includes a defendant to a counterclaim; “personal injury” includes any disease and any other impairment of a person's physical or mental condition; “related claim” means a claim for damages in respect of personal injury which is made— (a) in connection with the same incident or series of incidents in connection with which the primary claim is made, and (b) by a person other than the person who made the primary claim.(9) This section does not apply to proceedings started by the issue of a claim form before the day on which this section comes into force.” (I have added italics for emphasis) (a) the court finds that the claimant is entitled to damages in respect of the claim, but (b) on an application by the defendant for the dismissal of the claim under this section, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has beenfundamentally dishonest in relation to the primary claim or a related claim. (a) any subsequent criminal proceedings against the claimant in respect of the fundamental dishonesty mentioned in subsection (1)(b), and (b) any subsequent proceedings for contempt of court against the claimant in respect of that dishonesty. “claim” includes a counter-claim and, accordingly, “claimant” includes a counter-claimant and “defendant” includes a defendant to a counterclaim; “personal injury” includes any disease and any other impairment of a person's physical or mental condition; “related claim” means a claim for damages in respect of personal injury which is made— (a) in connection with the same incident or series of incidents in connection with which the primary claim is made, and (b) by a person other than the person who made the primary claim.[101]The approach to determining dishonesty in civil law was made clear by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting [2017] UKSC 67, in which the claimant was a professional gambler who sued a casino for his winnings. They defended on the basis that he was a cheat. Lord Hughes set out the Court’s approach at [74]:
“… When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.”
[102]To make a finding of dishonest conduct, this Court uses a two-step process:(1) determine what the Claimant subjectively knew or believed the facts to be when he behaved as he did, and(2) determine objectively whether the Claimant’s conduct was dishonest. Applying the law to the facts 103. Dishonest conduct

Applying the law to the facts

[103]Taking into account the Claimant’s evidence both in writing and in the witness box, and comparing it with the pre-accident health records, the post-accident experts’ reports and health records and the surveillance videos, I consider that the Claimant knew very well from mid 2021 that he had recovered well. He knew that he was able:(1) to walk middle distances safely, with a normal gait,(2) to drive manual vans up to at least 200 miles in one day,(3) to drive very powerful sports cars,(4) to do mechanical work on beach buggies and kit cars and to drive them,(5) to go out in boats on the salt water,(6) to carry out some medium effort manual work, including driving forklift trucks and box vans, and(7) to do his domestic housework, cooking, shopping and administrative paperwork. I consider that, probably from mid 2021, he put on a disabled presentation which he knew to be worse than his actual physical disabilities and he claimed cognitive dysfunction at a grossly exaggerated level. I consider that the Claimant had been involved, part time, in running his own business, using the works van, visiting clients and doing what he could to contribute. In my judgment, objectively, the Claimant’s reports of disability and his disabled presentation to and behaviour in front of the medico-legal experts, his case manager and many of his treating experts and his reports to the DWP, have been untrue and he knew they were. His display to the Court of his inability to open his left hand was one such dishonest display. A selection of the detail of many of the untruths is set out in my factual findings above. I have not identified each and every untruth, there are many more that I have taken into account. I consider that the majority of the sequellae/disabilities (probably 80%) which the Claimant presented to his lawyers, before they withdrew, which formed the basis of his final schedule of loss, was dishonest exaggeration.[104]I find that the Claimant has a work capacity which has probably been near full time since mid 2021. He is only a little limited by fatigue, some minor weakness of the left leg and some low-level right leg pain. I find that the Claimant’s left shoulder function is close to normal. His left arm has had minor neurological weakness but not enough to prevent normal activities of daily living including grasping, carrying, driving, lifting and pushing. He has no left foot drop. He can walk his dogs, mend and build kit cars, bend and carry moderate weights and drive manual shift vans and powerful sports cars. I accept that he has some bladder urgency medicated by pills and come constipation evidenced by recent scans showing fecal loading, for which he uses laxatives. I consider that his activity level and fatigue is aggravated by his own drug taking and drinking which are not related to the RTA. I do not accept that his concentration or memory are significantly damaged. His refusal to engage with PVT and SVT means that he has not proven any significant cognitive decline on the balance of probabilities. I do not accept that the Claimant has regular headaches caused by the RTA. I consider that through 2020 and into the summer of 2021 he made a good recovery from them. By the time he was buying his Aston Martin in August 2021 he was well established on a plateau of recovery and also established in trying to exaggerate his claim. I find that by mid 2021 and definitely by the time that he saw Mr Tromans in 2022 he was firmly set on a dishonest course to grossly exaggerate the claim.[105]I consider that objectively the man on the Clapham Omnibus and the Woman on the Sheffield Tram would consider that his grossly exaggerated presentation of his level of disability was dishonest, taking into account the facts which the Claimant himself knew. Fundamentality[106]Was that dishonest conduct fundamental to the claim? Whether I apply the formulation of fundamentality of His Honour Judge Moloney QC, sitting in the County Court at Cambridge, in Gosling v Hailo (29 April 2014) at paras. 44-45, or the formulation in paras. 55-56 and 62-63 of the judgment of Julian Knowles J in London Organising Committee of the Olympic & Paralympic Games v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 [LOC], or the approach of Cotter J in Muyapa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648, at paras. 16-17, the result is the same. In my judgment the Claimant’s dishonesty was fundamental to the claim. It was not minor, collateral or peripheral. It hugely inflated the damages under each head of loss and created large dishonest heads of loss. It lasted for many years and affected both the Claimant’s presentation of the claim and the Defendant’s defence thereof. The dishonesty accounted, as will be shown below, for probably 70-80% of the value of the loss and expenses damages claimed. Thus, I must dismiss the claim unless I find that to do so would cause a substantial injustice to the Claimant. Substantial Injustice[107]I have considered the factors relevant to the determination of substantial injustice in Williams Henry v Associated British Ports [2024] EWHC 806 at para. 178. Running through those factors:(1) the amount claimed in dishonest damages is much larger than the honest damages.(2) The scope and depth of this Claimant’s dishonesty is gross and widespread.(3) The dishonesty has added a substantial amount of work for the Defendant’s insurers. The trial lasted a lot longer as a result. Interlocutory hearings resulted and many experts had to provide supplementary reports. Considerable sums had to be spent on surveillance.(4) The level of the Claimant’s genuine disability, pain and suffering was initially severe, but he made a good recovery within 2 years and now he has mild symptoms. The real loss of capacity and amenity for this Claimant is the loss of his high octane sports and the busy manual side of his job, which he enjoyed, although he did find it stressful. He has claimed PIP payments on an inappropriate basis from the DWP.(5) The Defendant’s tort was driving negligence.(6) Because I have found fundamental dishonesty, even if I did not dismiss the whole claim, CPR r.44 would enfranchise the Court to penalise this dishonest Claimant in costs for the issues relating to dishonesty at the least and the whole costs at the most. The Defendant’s costs are estimated at around £500,000. The Claimant’s own costs on the main issues touched by the dishonesty will have been very substantial (I have seen no costs budget) and most conditional fee agreements work such that the lawyers get paid if the Claimant recovers any damages, thus the Claimant will have to pay a sizeable chunk of his own lawyers costs in any event. I infer that the ATE insurers will not pick up the tab in a fundamental dishonesty case. Therefore, any damages I award (as set out below) are likely to be wholly or mainly eaten up in legal costs.[108]Factor (7) relates to repayment of interim payments. Under CPR r.25.20(6) the Court has the power to order the Claimant to refund to the Defendant all or part of any interim payments and hence to adjust previous interim payment orders. In cases not involving fundamental dishonesty, where the Claimant is awarded less than the interim payments received, the difference is usually ordered to be repaid, with interest thereon under CPR r.25.20 (8). The notes to that rule and the guidance in volume 2 of the White Book at para. 15-130 make no mention of any case law determining whether, in a S.57 case, return of interim payments affects the determination of substantial injustice. The Defendant submitted that factor (7) should not be taken into account at all. The Defendant’s insurers entered the Rehabilitation Code in good faith and made interim payments. I consider that, as a general approach, it would not be an acceptable for this Court to permit a dishonest claimant who has obtained large sums in interim payments to keep those payments and hence to avoid the effects of S.57, by determining that repayment would create a substantial injustice. Nor would it be fair and just to honest injured claimants for this Court to allow dishonest claimants a “get out of jail free card”, with the title substantial injustice, based on having received interim payments and spent them. Thus, in a case such as this, in my judgment, the adverse financial consequences of having to pay back the interim payments, for instance having to sell an Aston Martin, or a kit car, or a works van or even a house, would not generally persuade this Court that a significant injustice had arisen. Particularly, in this case, when the Claimant appears to have put some of the interim payments into his business. However, I do not accept the Defendant’s submissions that repayment is irrelevant. In my judgment the relevance of repayment of the interim payments to the determination of substantial injustice for this dishonest Claimant is low. In any event, the Claimant did not plead substantial injustice or make any submissions upon it in closing, or provide any evidence of the effect of repayment of the interim payments. I do not know what savings he has. I do not know the true value of his shares in BCR, so I do not have sufficient evidence of injustice through repayment to be able to make this a weighty factor.[109](8) As to the effect on the Claimant’s life, he has been receiving state benefits whilst he is still running his refrigeration company with error strewn accounts, whilst receiving undeclared rental income and undeclared capital profits from the sale of his house in Newbury. The effect on the Claimant’s life is likely to be that he will be less financially well off, but I have insufficient evidence to make any further findings of fact.[110]In my judgment, the financial effect of dismissing his claim will be the same as or similar to granting him his honest damages and making the requisite adverse costs orders arising from the fundamental dishonesty issue. For all of the reasons set out above in the 8 factors, I do not consider that it would be a substantial injustice to dismiss the claim.

Quantum

[111]I am required now to assess the Claimant’s honest damages. Where I use the word “award” below I mean the award which I would have made if I had not dismissed the claim. Pain, Suffering and loss of amenity[112]The Claimant seeks £375,000 and the Defendant submits the appropriate award is £150,000. I use the JC Guidelines 18th edition and the comparable awards in Kemp & Kemp on Quantum Vols 3 & 4 as guidance. The relevant JC guideline categories are:• Spine and all the sequellae thereof including bladder and bowel: 7(b)(i) moderate: £33,020 - £50,850.• Brain and all the sequellae thereof: 3A(C)(iii) moderate: £56,890 - £119,860.• Shoulder: 7(C) (c): moderate: £10,420 - £16,870.• Left hip, and other injuries.• I have also read the bladder and bowel injury categories but neither was actually damaged.[113]For the brain injury I consider that the award should be lower than that in James v Starbuck Kemp vol 3, para. B4-016 (updated to May 2025 as £96,570, and higher still today). For the spinal injury I consider that the award should be higher than Hayden v Maidstone Kemp Vol 3 para. F4-001 (updated to May 2025 as £55,320 so higher still today).[114]As with polytrauma in all personal injury claims the symptoms overlap. I accept that the Claimant’s early symptoms from the TBI and the ISCI were severe for 2 months, then chronic and intrusive for 2 years and then they plateaued. On the plateau I accept that the brain injury has reduced the Claimant’s cognitive functioning and memory in a minor way and produced a little fatigue. However, he can plan normally, create businesses, talk, see and hear normally, work, socialise, drive long distances, travel abroad, run his life and he has full capacity. I accept that the ISCI causes weakness reducing his left leg power to 4/5 and some burning sensation which is annoying but not intrusive in his right leg which itself, has full power. I accept that the Claimant suffers some patchy altered sensation but it is not disabling. I do not accept that he has foot drop. I consider that the Claimant’s gait and mobility are close to normal with a reduction only when he is cold or tired. I accept that the Claimant has suffered bladder urgency which was well controlled until recently and will be well controlled again on altered medication. Despite this control he has occasional accidents, but he can drive long distances without concern and can travel on long distance flights in economy class. I accept that he has some constipation which he manages with laxatives. I accept that his sexual function is less easy to instigate but with the same erectile enhancers that he was taking before the RTA he can achieve satisfaction and give it. I consider that the shoulder injury and subsequent frozen shoulder were resolved by injections within 12 months of the RTA. I do not accept any significantly raised risk of epilepsy and in any event, should that arise, it will probably be controlled by medication. I accept that the Claimant will be weaker in old age than he would have been in his last 5 years of life. I do not accept that his life expectancy is reduced, but it may be reduced a little. I consider that the Claimant can drive all sorts of vehicles, walk normally, work full time 5 days per week, lift and carry all sorts of items normally, so long as he does not do so unergonomically and can carry out all of the normal activities of daily living. I find that he has some difficulty out on the open sea in speed boats and has a reduced capacity to race kit cars and beach buggies, but he can still enjoy them and drive supercars.[115]I consider that the appropriate award for the Claimant’s pain, suffering and loss of amenity is £150,000. PAST loss[116]The schedule was never updated to trial. The claim is made to January 2025. I shall update the figures to May 2026 thus adding 1 year and 4 months of loss and expense (1.33 years) where appropriate.[117]Treatment and medication The sum pleaded is agreedat£500. Another one year of Anadin purchcases would cost £100 x 1.33 = £133. Total £633.[118]Case Management Nil is claimed. It was paid for under the rehabilitation code.[119]Care and assistance The Claimant sought £75,079 for gratuitous care from the date of the RTA to 15.1.2025. The continuing hours claimed from 1.1.2020 to date are 28 per week. The Defendant admits £5,452 on the basis of Ms Gough’s evidence to the end of 2020 at the commercial rate less tax and NI. I accept that evidence and award that sum. I do not consider that the Claimant needed care after December 2020. The Claimant also seeks to reclaim domestic cleaning costs allegedly paid to Jenna Poole (who was not called) between January 2020 and April 2024 and the cash paid to a dog walker and his children who walked his dogs. I do not consider that these expenses, if paid, were attributable to the RTA. Total: £5,452.[120]Therapies. No sums are pleaded in the schedule and these are denied. Award nil.[121]Accommodation The Claimant seeks £10,175 for adaptations to his home post RTA. These sums are denied on the basis that the Claimant could not have done the work himself. I have read the invoices. All are provided on invoice forms with no proper full address, no company registration number, no personal name of the installer, no telephone number and no VAT number. I do not accept that they are real. As to their substance, I do not award the £2,800 for re-slabbing of the patio and garden shed. If the garden was already paved then that reduced maintenance and the desire for a garden shed is not caused by the RTA. The new oak doors supplied in August 2021 at £1,875 are not caused by the RTA. The costs of repairing the parquet flooring at £1,650 in September 2021 is not explained as caused by the RTA or the sequellae. The £1,405 claimed for decoration in February 2022 is not caused by the RTA or the sequellae and the Claimant has not proven on balance that he would have done that work himself but for the RTA or that he could not have done that work since the RTA. The invoice from May 2022 for £2,400 for dividing up a bedroom and creating wardrobes is not caused by the RTA. I accept that handrails in the bathroom would have been necessary in the first two years after the RTA but not by 2022. Award nil.[122]Aids and Equipment The Claimant seeks the costs of an i-calendar at £150, obtained in September 2023. I do not consider that was incurred as a result of the RTA. Award nil.[123]Travel and Transport The Claimant seeks £11,196 for unspecified hospital visits and visits to his home by his children. The Defendant denies that claim. The way to prove such a claim is for the dates to be provided for the various medical visits and an indication given of which medical treatment he was getting and from whom. None has been provided. However, I take into account the medical notes which prove many such post-accident visits to pain clinics, therapy, his GP and others. I will take a rough and ready approach to this head of loss and award two years of travel at the claimed rate of £0.45 per mile and mileage of 500 pa. 500 x 0.45 x 2 = £450. In addition, the Claimant seeks the costs of visits to SGH, Poole and Salisbury at £141.20. The Defendant admits £142. I award that sum. The Claimant also seeks the costs of 4 years of car valeting at £1,470. This is denied. I do not consider that the Claimant has discharged the burden of proving that he would have done his own valeting in any event, or the assertion that he was unable to wash his own car in or outside his own garage from mid 2021. Therefore, the total award under this head is £592.[124]Loss of earnings The Claimant seeks £178,141 for his loss, net of tax and net of post RTA salary receipts, to January 2025. He relies on the report of Maurice Faull. He calculated the loss to 31.3.2025. Some explanation is needed. The Claimant admitted to Mr Faull that after the accident he continued to receive salary until November 2021 but stated he did not receive any dividends, which he had received monthly before the RTA. Mr Faull was unsatisfied with the documentation and asked various questions in December 2023. The responses from the company accountant, Mr Brooks, 11 months later were likewise unsatisfactory. Thus, Mr Faull stated he was unable to make a proper but for projection for the profits of BCR. The core documents did not justify the filed accounts and the accounts did not tally with the tax returns. I am reminded of the evidence of Sarah Chilcott. Two sets of tax returns covering the same periods were given to him with different figures for dividends. The Claimant provided no tax returns disclosing his buy to let income from the Newbury property or the capital gain on the sale thereof. Mr Faull chased the evidence trails like a bloodhound but concluded that these had never been declared to HMRC. No bank account for rental receipts was provided to him. As for the Claimant’s salary, the cumulative gross pay slip figures appeared to be inaccurate. One pay slip had two different versions. Mr Faull concluded that the Claimant had underdeclared his gross salary to the HMRC in 2017/2018. At least when reviewing the bank statements the receipts roughly matched the salary. Despite all the problems, Mr Faull considered that the Claimant had suffered loss of earnings. He used the Claimant’s declared earnings as the but for projection. He noted that the Claimant’s wife was employed in the month that the Claimant’s salary reduced by about the total salary paid to her in the spring of 2017. He calculated the gross pre-accident earnings as £48,600 gross of pension contributions. He increased the gross salary by the percentages set out at para. 3.21. He deducted the income received post-accident and assumed no residual earning capacity for the rest of the Claimant’s working life. He then calculated the future loss of earnings at £47,200 npa x 13, to age 67, total £791,741. I am very favourably impressed by Mr Faull’s independence and detailed analysis. The Defendant’s forensic account, Mr Pillar, reported on 26.2.2025. He considered that Mr Faull’s report was reasonable and did not dispute any of the figures.[125]Thus, the issues in this case for me to decide on past loss of earnings are:(1) whether the injuries suffered in the RTA did stop the Claimant working as he had done before;(2) whether the RTA has abolished or damaged the Claimant’s residual earning capacity; and(3) if the Claimant has a residual earning capacity, how should that be assessed in money value?[126]The Defendant simply denies the claim for past loss of earnings, which is unhelpful. The Defendant accepts it would be reasonable to make a Smith v Manchester award for future loss at £70,800 (18 months net loss). Dealing first with the past loss of income, I hold, on balance, that the RTA prevented the Claimant from carrying out his pre-accident engineering, driving, installing roles and his estimating role for abut 2 years. In find that he went into work part time and he did administrative work, he took phone calls and used the company van on regular occasions to visits customers, but then within 6 months, the business was shut down by Covid. It opened up again in late 2020 and the Claimant again took a part time, reduced role in the business. I find that the Claimant decided, by September 2021, to stop drawing a salary for reasons connected with the personal injury claim and his desire to cover up the work he was still doing in his own business. By mid 2021 I consider that the Claimant had full time work capacity in a reduced, less physical role. Since then, I consider that he has continued to work part time in the business, despite having a full time capacity. I do not have any sufficient evidence upon which to make findings on whether he has drawn no income (which is the Claimant’s case) or has in some way drawn an income which Mr Faull cannot find because he has not been given all the relevant documents (for instance payments into an undisclosed bank or building society account, perhaps the buy to let rent account, which was not disclosed to Mr Faull). I am therefore at a disadvantage as a result of the Claimant’s fundamental dishonesty and his inadequate accounts. What I consider I can safely do is work on the basis that the Claimant suffered substantially reduced income for just under 2 years after the accident, whilst he was recovering, as calculated by Mr Faull. So, until the end of the tax year April 2020/2021. That loss is calculated at £37,396.Thereafter, whilst I accept that the Claimant has suffered some loss of his pre-accident capacity and salary, I am going to have to infer what his residual earning capacity was. To do that I consider that I must stay well within the factual boundaries of the evidence. I find that the Claimant did continue to run BCR. He did continue to employ other engineers to do the physical work, although he did some warehouse work himself and he probably provided estimates and met clients in the ways shown on the surveillance videos and much more. He continued as an active director and the sole shareholder. The value of his contribution will depend on the hours put in, which, on the medical evidence, should have been full time, but could not have involved ladder work or very heavy lifting. Doing the best I can with the medical evidence I consider that the Claimant lost between 10 and 30% of his work capacity and his value to the company by being unable to do the heavy physical work. Thus, for the remaining 5.13 years of loss, from 5th April 2021 to mid May 2026, I consider that his loss will be: £171,852 (the but for earnings between 5.4.2021 and 4.4.2025) plus £53,348 (£47,211 x 1.13, for the updating since the date of the schedule), total £225,200 x 10% - 30% = £22,520 - £67,560. I choose the mid-point which is 20% and so the loss is £45,040. Thus, the total past loss is £82,436.[127]Miscellaneous – Divorce legal costs The Claimant claims the legal costs of his divorce, additional heating, laundry and eating out. The evidence does not support the costs of his divorce having been caused by the RTA or the sequellae. In any event, in Pritchard v Cobden [1987] 2 W.L.R. 627, the Court of Appeal (Ormerod, Croom-Johnson, O’Connor LJJ) ruled that it was against public policy to award as damages the ancillary relief determinations in divorce as a loss. They are an apportionment of assets and hence too remote. The Law Commission report of 1986 did not recommend any change to that rule. As for additional heating costs the Defendant admits £500 for about 1 year at home and the Claimant seeks £3,194 from discharge from hospital to the date of the schedule. I consider that two years of increased heating costs are appropriate during the recovery period but because the Claimant was also going out work part time during this period I award a total of £500. As for the claimed increased costs of laundry and eating out, these services were provided as part of the gratuitous care by his family in the first two years of recovery and so they are included in the award for gratuitous care above. I award nothing for the additional costs of eating out. I find that the Claimant did not discharge the burden of proof either that he would not have eaten out but for the RTA or that he is unable to shop or cook for himself or for his family when they were with him. Indeed, it was his case before the Family Courts that he could look after his youngest daughter. Thus the total award is £500.[128]Interest on past loss. I award no interest on past losses because the Claimant has had interim payment of at least £300,000. FUTURE LOSS AND EXPENSE[129]Rehabilitation The Claimant claims £310,168 for the cost of rehabilitation recommended by Jane James. Tucked within that claim are: the cost of rehousing him in a 4-5 bedroom rental property with a therapy room; 1:1 care for 10 hours per day for 6 months; live in rehabilitation at the Wellington Hospital (£60,000) and £24,000 for occupational therapy. Tessa Gough does not support any of those claims. She has seen the surveillance, Ms James has not. The medical evidence does not support these claimed heads of loss. Furthermore, the Claimant did not fully engage with the rehabilitation he was provided on the NHS and privately in the past. I do not consider that the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof that any of these heads are necessary to treat his honest remaining symptoms. Award nil.[130]Medical Treatmentand medication The Claimant seeks £122,600 for the costs of annual outpatient spinal reviews recommended by Mr Tromans, however Mr Tromans’ written evidence collapsed in cross-examination and Mr Kirkpatrick did not support this asserted need. I accept the Defendant’s expert’s evidence. Any spinal follow up is likely to be done by the NHS in any event. The claims for pain consultant treatment and analgesic medication are unquantified save the for pills the schedule pleads “see above”. It is the Claimant’s responsibility to quantify his claim. Failing to do so undermines the process of quantification and prevents insurers being able to put a proper reserve on the claim. Award nil.[131]Urological treatment The Claimant seeks £6,760 pa for urinary pills for life, 2 sets of botox injections and erectile dysfunction pills for life. The Claimant also seeks £10,000 for urodynamic studies and annual ultrasounds. The total claimed is £165,755. £55,000 was accepted in the Defendant’s closing submissions but only £978 in the counter schedule. Mr Shah updated his treatment and review costs in his live evidence, which I accept. I allow the costs of an annual review at £1,060pa x 30.49 (the longer life multiplier accepted by the Defendant) = £32,319. I also allow the costs of a pre-paid prescription certificate at £114.50 x 8.54 to age 60 when such should become free, total £978. I also consider that an annual allowance for the increased need for erectile dysfunction pills over and above what he would have needed but for would be appropriate. I allow £250 px x 20 (a reduced multiplier) = £5,000. Total award: £38,297.[132]Mental health treatment The Claimant seeks £80,560 for annual neuropsychiatric treatment and a bolus of neuropsychology treatment. Dr Jacobson does not support the need for this and I accept his evidence. In the light of the Claimant’s dishonesty this was not proven to be needed. Award nil.[133]Case Management The Claimant seeks £205,373 for case management for life. This is not supported by Tessa Gough and Ms James’ opinion in her early report is wholly undermined by the Claimant’s dishonesty. I do not consider that the Claimant needs any case management. He is independent for his ADL (Activities of Daily Living) and can self-care and self-administer. Award nil.[134]Care and assistance The Claimant seek £1,880,910 for future care, including £204,880 pa in his last few years of life. This part of the claim is the most fundamentally dishonest. Whilst Mr Tromans and Mr Kirkpatrick allowed for accelerated weakness with aging as a result of the ISCI, neither supported the claimed levels of care. Mr Kirkpatrick advised that no care will be needed either now or in future. Ms Gough therefore assesses no care is needed. I find that the Claimant does not need nursing care or assistance as a result of the sequellae of the RTA and will not do so in future. I find that the Claimant has not fulfilled the burden of proof that he will need care as a result of the RTA as he ages. Award nil.[135]Therapies The Claimant seeks no calculated sum. I do not consider that any award is merited for AFOs, because the Claimant does not use them and does not have foot drop. I do not consider that physiotherapy is required and none of the Defendant’s experts recommend that. Mr Tromans’ evidence was so undermined that I do not rely upon it. The Claimant seeks the cost of a left-hand robotic glove but provides no costings. I reject that claim as wholly unrealistic and undermined by the Claimant’s dishonesty. The £28,858 claimed for OT was supported by Jane James but I reject her opinion on the Claimant’s needs because they were undermined by the Claimant failing to obtain an updated report from her after the surveillance videos were served. The unquantified claims for physiotherapy and hand therapy are not supported by Ms Gough and hence the need is unproven. The claim for chiropody arose from Ms James’ report and I reject her opinion. Ms Gough does not advise that these are needed. Award nil.[136]Domestic assistance The Claimant seeks £177,868 for house cleaning for life. I do not consider that he needs help, he can do it himself. Ms Gough does not support this and I reject Mr Tromans’ evidence that the Claimant cannot clean his own house. None of the other live expert expert evidence supported the need for this. Award nil.[137]Dog Walking It is an oddity that none of the surveillance caught the Claimant walking his dogs. However, snapshots of his life, mainly involving driving the works van or his Aston Martin, are nothing more than that. The medical evidence does not support any need for the Claimant to employ a dog walker. He can walk them himself perfectly well in my judgment. Award nil.[138]Window cleaning, decoration, DIY and gardening. In total the claimed heads amount to over £138,000. The Defendant disputes them all. I reject each of these heads of claim. Firstly, because I reject the evidence of Jane James for the reasons set out above. Secondly, because the medical evidence from the experts who gave evidence did not support such needs, other than Mr Tromans. Thirdly, because I reject Mr Tromans’ evidence for the reasons set out above. He should have grappled in his last report with the Claimant’s untruths to him, instead he rather papered over the cracks. I consider that the Claimant is able to clean his downstairs windows and if they swivel, his upstairs windows. I consider that the Claimant is able to carry out buggy construction, kit car repairs, maintenance, DIY and handyman work. His restriction relates mainly to ladders but he can obtain platforms to work from indoors. As for the claim for gardening, the front and rear are laid as patios, thus any light weeding or flower arranging is well within the Claimant’s capabilities. Award nil.[139]Household expenditure I do not consider that the claims for additional laundry or a carer’s furniture or heating are justified on the findings that I have made on the medical evidence. Award nil.[140]Travel and Transport None of these heads of loss have been quantified. TBA is not a valid head of claim. In light of the Claimant’s ability to walk, drive and fly long haul in economy class I find he has no need of vehicles adaption, a taxi allowance, car valeting or insurance for a carer. Award nil.[141]Accommodation The Claimant asserts that he reasonably requires a single storey property which is wheelchair accessible. He has lived in his 2 storey house for 7 years since the RTA. No accommodation expert evidence was provided. No calculation was set out in the schedule. In any event the Claimant does not require single storey accommodation on the medical evidence which I have accepted above. I do not consider he will need it any earlier as he ages. The Claimant has failed to establish such a need on the balance of probabilities and his dishonest assertions undermine this head of loss. Award nil.[142]Aids and Equipment The Claimant seeks £186,297. He claims that he needs a mobility wheelchair, a folding wheelchair, a mobility scooter, an off road scooter and a hoist, amongst other items. This is another head of claim which is deeply permeated with fundamental dishonesty. The incongruity of the Claimant driving his second Aston Martin to London at the same time as he asserted that he needed a mobility scooter is, I would think, a little obvious. Award nil.[143]Loss of earnings The Claimant calculates his loss on the basis that he has no residual earning capacity. The but for earnings claimed were properly calculated by Maurice Faull and the multiplicand used is not disputed by the Defendant. So, but for the RTA, I accept that the Claimant would have earned an average of £47,200 npa (the sum claimed in the schedule) for his working life, if he would have worked to age 67. I accept the Claimant’s discounted multiplier of 13, but reduce it to 10 because I consider that in his 60s he would have reduced his physical engineering work and increased his administration work and hired an engineer to do his installations. Thus, the potential loss is £47,200 x 10 = £472,000. The more difficult issue is to decide the Claimant’s residual earning capacity. The confounding factors are:(1) his dishonesty about his work done since the RTA.(2) The contradictory and inadequate documentation supplied to Mr Faull about dividends and tax returns before the RTA and his post-accident income. The evidential basis for my assessment of his post-accident work capacity comes” from all of the defence medical experts who opine that he is able to work. Mr Kirkpatrick considers that he can work full time and delegate heavier aspects if he needs to. I accept that evidence. Dr Leschinskiy advised that he has recovered almost completely. I accept that evidence. I decided under the heading “past loss of earnings” that the Claimant’s earning capacity was probably reduced by 20% as a result of his continuing symptoms. On that basis, as a general assessment, his future loss of earnings would have a value of £94,400. No sum was admitted in the counter schedule. In submissions, the Defendant submitted that a Smith v Manchester award would be appropriate, because the Claimant is still in his pre-accident work at his own company. They submitted that an award of £70,800, being 18 months of net earnings, would be appropriate. As a cross check that is not an unreasonable approach, but I consider that the multiplier/multiplicand approach is preferrable if the evidence is sufficient to use it. In this case, it is just sufficient. Award £94,400.[144]Pension loss No additional claim was made or calculated in the schedule.[145]Holidays £116,176 was claimed by the Claimant for additional carers’ accommodation on holidays, calculated at £4,738 pa x 24.52, the Claimant’s multiplier for life. All other expenses, being flights for carers, vehicles at the destination and accessible accommodation, were unquantified. The Defendant’s medical evidence, which I have accepted, does not support the need for carers. The Claimant’s trips to Gibraltar and Jamaica, without carers, do not support this head of loss and the Claimant’s dishonest presentation weighs heavily against any award because he clearly does not need carers, adapted accommodation or, in my judgment, first class air travel. Award nil.[146]Miscellaneous expenses The Claimant seeks the lifetime costs of a personal trainer, hydrotherapy, vocational training, and adds in laundry and heating. All of these heads are marked “TBA”. I reject them all for the following reasons. The Claimant does not need a personal trainer. He had an exercise bike and used it at home. He can go to a gym in the same way that he could have before the RTA. As for hydrotherapy, none of the Defendant’s medical experts support that expense. In any event the Claimant can visit a public pool. The claims for laundry and heating are a duplication because they were also claimed under item 23 (additional household expenditure). Award nil.

Summary of the quantification of damages

[147]Had I not dismissed the claim the award for the honest damages would have been £378,420. The table below shows the calculation,

Conclusions

[148]I find that the Defendant’s tort caused the Claimant to suffer multiple, serious injuries. Those are listed at paragraph 17 above.[149]I assess the quantum of the damages due to the Claimant for his pain, suffering and loss of amenity, past and future loss and expense at £378,420.[150]I find that the Claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in his presentation of the claim and his reporting and presentation of his physical and mental disabilities to the Court and to the experts.[151]I do not consider that a substantial injustice would be caused to the Claimant by dismissing the claim, therefore I will dismiss the claim in an order made at or after the consequentials hearing.[152]Esure, Messrs Keoghs and the Defendant’s barrister have had to carry out a lot of investigatory and legal work to uncover the Claimant’s dishonesty. It is disappointing to be driven to find that a man so seriously injured through the torts of another, has been fundamentally dishonest about the sequellae arising from his injuries, with the intention of defrauding the Defendant’s RTA insurer. That conduct has deprived him of a substantial sum in damages to which he would otherwise have been entitled. S.57 was passed to prevent this sort of conduct. END