Wye Valley NHS Trust v Sean Murphy
[2024] EWHC 1912 (KB)
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust v Sven Raymond Bogmer
10 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1724 (KB)
High Court
A man sued a hospital for a bad arm after surgery, but secretly he was much better than he claimed. A hidden camera showed him doing things he said he couldn't, and the judge found him guilty of lying to the court.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Sven Raymond Bogmer made a dishonest clinical negligence claim against Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust.
- •The claim, totaling £227,990, alleged nerve injury to his right arm following surgery.
- •The Trust discovered the dishonesty through a forensic review of medical records and covert surveillance.
- •Surveillance showed Mr. Bogmer performing activities inconsistent with his claimed disability.
- •Expert witnesses agreed that Mr. Bogmer's statements were inconsistent with medical records and surveillance.
- •Mr. Bogmer did not attend the committal hearing, citing poor health, but the court proceeded in his absence.
- •Mr. Bogmer had a history of right arm problems predating the surgery.
Legal Principles
In committal proceedings for contempt of court, the burden is on the applicant to prove the allegations to a criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).
Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust v Atwal [2018] EWHC (QB) 2537
Two categories of contempt were considered: interference with the administration of justice through false statements to experts and false statements in documents verified by a statement of truth (contrary to Part 32.14 CPR).
Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust v Atwal [2018] EWHC (QB) 2537
Exaggeration of a claim, without more, is not automatic proof of contempt. The degree of exaggeration and circumstances matter. A statement to an examining doctor may be viewed differently than one made after repeated requests for specifics.
Walton v Kirk [2009] EWHC 703 (QB); Rogers v Little Haven Day Nursery Limited (30 July 1999, unreported)
Factors to consider when deciding to proceed with a trial in a defendant's absence include: the nature of the defendant's absence, the possibility of adjournment, defendant's representation, disadvantage to the defendant, and the public interest.
R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1; Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235
Outcomes
Mr. Bogmer was found guilty of contempt of court.
The court found that Mr. Bogmer's statements to medical experts and in his claim documents were dishonest, grossly exaggerating his post-surgery condition and falsely attributing pre-existing conditions to the surgery. This was supported by overwhelming evidence including surveillance video and expert witness testimony.
Similar Cases
Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Kae Burnell-Chambers & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1901 (KB)
QBE UK Limited v Mark Raymond Hilton
[2023] EWHC 2004 (KB)
Advantage Insurance Company Limited v Alan Harris
[2024] EWHC 626 (KB)
Kirsty Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd
[2024] EWHC 806 (KB)