This article is published as part of Capsticks’ Insurance Review 2023.  

In Mantey v MOD (2023), the High Court rejected the claimant’s assertion that the inconsistency between his pleaded case and video evidence obtained by the defendant and his pleaded case was due to the latter being obtained on a ‘good day’.

The claimant was a former soldier who claimed c. £1.6 million for a Non-Freezing Cold Injury. The judge found him to be fundamentally dishonest with no other reasonable explanation for the inconsistencies highlighted by the video. The difference between his presentation to the defendant’s expert and the video was marked. The claimant’s assertion that the video was taken on a ‘good day’ when his pain was numbed by medication was rejected.

The judge considered a number of factors before finding the claimant fundamentally dishonesty, including the lack of an explanation in either the claimant’s or his wife’s witness statements and his failure to mention, to the defendant’s expert, the impact of the medication on mobility.

Comment

This case demonstrates that the courts’ appetite for making findings of fundamental dishonesty in appropriate cases shows no signs of abating. It also provides a helpful indication of what factors courts will take into account when reaching a decision.

Insurance Review 2023

This article is part of Capsticks' Insurance Review 2023.

Read the other articles featured in this publication below:

      Get in touch

      Aiming to be the firm of choice for medical malpractice and general liability insurers, we advise and support on all aspect of claims and inquests.

      To discuss how any of these issues may affect your organisation, please get in touch with Majid Hassan, Ed Mellor or Sarah Bryant or Cheryl Blundell.