Claimant's "fundamental Dishonesty" Debars All Of '3 Million Damages Claim

• Published date: 14 December 2022
• Subject Matter: Insurance, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Insurance Laws and Products, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury
• Law Firm: Weightmans
• Author: Mr Jim Byard

Judge rules claimant's entire claim for damages, which had been pleaded at the trial to be worth '2.97 million, should be struck out.

Muyepa v Ministry of Defence (MOD) - High Court, King's Bench Division

In a judgment handed down on 21 October 2022, Mr Justice Cotter ruled that the claimant's entire claim for damages, which had been pleaded at the trial to be worth '2.97 million, should be struck out.

The judge accepted that the true value of the genuine underlying claim for a Non-Freezing Cold Injury (NFCI) was occasioned by the defendant's breach of duty and was worth '97,000. However, in line with Section 57 (3) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act [2015], he struck out the whole claim, unconvinced that a "substantial injustice" would occur if the claimant were deprived of those (reduced) damages.

Background

The claim was framed against the MOD for their breach of statutory duty and common law negligence arising from the claimant's attendance at a promotions course held in Wales in 2016. This resulted in the claimant developing a Non-Freezing Cold Injury (NCFI) which affected his hands and feet.

The claimant was downgraded by a Medical Board in 2017 and was discharged from service in January 2018. The claimant alleged that his ongoing symptoms left him severely disabled. The final Schedule of Loss pleaded prior to trial claimed damages to include loss of earnings, pension and ongoing care and amounted to almost '3 million.

The defendant's primary contention was that the claimant created or consciously and significantly exaggerated his symptoms, that he was fundamentally dishonest and that the whole claim should be dismissed.

The Trial

The trial lasted for 12 days and the judge heard from a total of 29 lay witnesses and 10 experts in a variety of fields to include chronic pain and psychiatry.

The court was told of several instances - some captured on video film, some not- which were "deeply inconsistent" with the claimant's claimed severe disability and presentation both in his witness statements and to the medical and care experts.

The claimant maintained that he could only walk a few metres before the pain became too severe and he used a walking stick every day. The defendant alleged that the claimant had been walking unaided at a wedding in 2019, dancing at a barbeque and had exhibited differing presentations of disability when seen by a former colleague shopping in supermarkets.

The claimant also claimed ongoing care was provided by his wife...