Ruth Day, Legal Director at Capsticks, conducted contempt proceedings on behalf of NHS Resolution and Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, which concluded on 14 October 2025, with Kae Burnell-Chambers being awarded an immediate 26 week custodial sentence, and ordered to pay £135,000 towards the Trust’s legal costs. 

Ms Burnell-Chambers initially pursued a clinical negligence claim for an alleged failure to diagnose Cauda Equina Syndrome and treat in a timely manner, after her attendance at A&E on 10 August 2016. She claimed, amongst other things, that the delay rendered her with disturbed bladder function and neuropathic pain in her legs, incredibly restricted mobility of less than 100 metres, an inability to carry out basic household chores, needing a substantial level of care and assistance, an inability to work and requiring single story accommodation. She sought compensation in excess of £3million, having instructed a firm of solicitors to represent her, within three weeks of the incident.   

Her clinical negligence claim was discontinued three weeks before Trial after a period of covert surveillance demonstrated Ms Burnell-Chamber’s ability to mobilise and manage on a day-to-day basis was at odds with her pleaded case and the verbal accounts she gave to 13 different experts and videos taken at some of these assessments. Ms Burnell-Chambers’ social media accounts revealed that she participated in cosplay and bodypainting at conventions across the country and in Europe, and her own website revealed these body paints could take anywhere between 4-8 hours at a time. Ms Burnell-Chambers accepted that her claim was fundamentally dishonest in October 2022. She received no compensation. 

Given the severity of the dishonesty demonstrated by Ms Burnell-Chambers, the level of compensation that she had sought to recover from the public purse, and the extent and length of time this dishonesty went on for, NHS Resolution and the Trust instructed Capsticks to commence contempt proceedings. Ms Burnell-Chambers eventually provided a guilty plea, which the Court accepted in July 2025. At a hearing before Mrs Justice Tipple, MBE, on 8 and 14 October 2025, she heard evidence from Ms Burnell-Chambers’ legal team in mitigation, but Mrs Justice Tipple, MBE, was not persuaded by such evidence nor that a suspended sentence was appropriate, and stated, "All aspects of the clinical negligence claim were based on a dishonestly exaggerated claim. The truth was that she had made a good recovery. She lied about her symptoms to make a substantial claim. [Ms Burnell-Chambers] deliberately lied" and acknowledged that whilst she had apologised for her actions, such apologies only came 18 months after the committal proceedings were commenced.   

Helen Vernon, Chief Executive from NHS Resolution, commented: 

“NHS Resolution welcomes the decision of the court ... Fraudulent claims for compensation against the NHS take money away from patient care. We remain committed to ensuring fair compensation for patients who have suffered harm. However, this case serves as a clear reminder of the serious potential consequences faced by those who pursue dishonest or exaggerated claims against the NHS.” 

This is a reminder that in all cases, whether liability has been admitted or not, there is an ongoing need to consider the claims being advanced and whether they appear reasonable in line with the experience of similar type claims. A detailed review of records and documentation to consider pre and post index event positions is needed by the panel, and to listen to any concerns raised by experts or tip-offs from members of the public. Steps have to be taken to investigate those claims where there is a concern that fundamental dishonesty may be an issue, and to rule out whether that is the case or not. 

How Capsticks can help  

Extensive work has been undertaken by Capsticks internally, looking at cases where fundamental dishonesty has been raised as a concern, whether proven or not.  We have a number of claims within the firm where committal proceedings have been taken against dishonest Claimants, and they have been sentenced to a custodial sentence. We also have cases where the evidence may not be enough to plead fundamental dishonesty itself, but is of sufficient concern that it has been used in negotiations to reach reduced settlements. We are seeing an increased number of “tip-offs” made directly to Trusts. If you receive such a tip-off, please contact Ruth Day or members of the claims team to discuss what action needs to be taken and by whom.