Qaisar Mehmood v Harry Mayor
[2024] EWHC 1057 (KB)
Kirsty Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd
10 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 806 (KB)
High Court
A woman sued after falling from a pier. She claimed serious injuries and needed lots of help. Secret videos and her social media showed she was much better than she said. The judge said she lied a lot to get more money, so she lost the entire case. The judge was worried she might hurt herself but decided this wasn't a good enough reason to let her keep the money she wasn't entitled to.
Key Facts
- •Claimant suffered a moderately severe brain injury after falling from Aberavon Pier.
- •Defendant owned or occupied the pier.
- •Liability was settled at 2/3 in Claimant's favor.
- •Trial concerned quantum of damages and Claimant's alleged fundamental dishonesty under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
- •Claimant's social media activity, employment records, and DWP records were disclosed during the proceedings.
- •Surveillance video evidence was presented by the Defendant.
- •Claimant made numerous demonstrably false statements to medical professionals and in court.
- •Claimant's mother actively participated in the dishonesty.
Legal Principles
Fundamental dishonesty in personal injury claims under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Section 57
Burden of proof for fundamental dishonesty rests on the Defendant (civil standard).
Cojanu v Essex [2022] EWHC 197 (QB)
Definition of 'substantial injustice' in Section 57 cases.
London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51, Woodger v Hallas [2022] EWHC 1561 (QB)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed due to Claimant's fundamental dishonesty.
The court found the Claimant made numerous false statements regarding the extent of her injuries and disabilities for financial gain. The dishonesty was deemed fundamental to the claim, substantially affecting its presentation and the Defendant's defense. The court considered the factors relating to substantial injustice, including the amount of genuine damages, the scope of the dishonesty, its impact on the proceedings, and the Claimant's genuine disability. While acknowledging the risk of suicide, the court ultimately determined that dismissing the claim would not constitute substantial injustice, particularly considering the Claimant's lack of remorse and the possibility of the Claimant being able to work and live independently.