Clyde & Co’s trial wins strengthen insurers’ position on exaggerated injury claims

To be attributed to Victoria Jackson and Laura Topping, Legal Directors, Disease

Clyde & Co has secured two significant Court rulings reinforcing insurers’ ability to challenge exaggerated personal injury claims, including those discontinued before trial.

In a recent case a former soldier brought against the MoD, Atuanya v Ministry of Defence, the High Court found that the former soldier’s discontinued non freezing cold injury (NFCI) claim, valued at more than £375,000, to be fundamentally dishonest. Acting for the Ministry of Defence, Clyde & Co successfully obtained a ruling which removed the claimant’s Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) protection and enabled full cost recovery.

The court clarified that if a claimant exaggerates key parts of their case - particularly where this affects who is at fault or how much compensation they seek - that exaggeration can amount to fundamental dishonesty. This applies even where the claim involves both physical and mental health injuries.

Importantly for insurers, the court made it clear that these cases are more than just about recouping costs. Where defendants face several similar claims, they are entitled to pursue fundamental dishonesty findings to deter exaggerated or dishonest claims and to protect the integrity of the claims process.

In a second decision brought by Clyde & Co on behalf of the MOD, Godfred Boakye-Srampa v Ministry of Defence, Leicester County Court again found a discontinued NFCI claim, valued at approximately £445,000, to be fundamentally dishonest. The ruling reinforced the importance of properly challenging expert evidence and applied the Supreme Court’s guidance in TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths, confirming that unchallenged expert opinion must be accepted by the court.

These decisions give insurers confidence that they can still rely on fundamental dishonesty as a strong and legitimate defence tool, even when a claim has been dropped. Where a claim is exaggerated in a way that strikes at its credibility, the courts will support defendants in taking action.

Together, the rulings provide practical guidance for insurers investigating suspicious claims, strengthening confidence in:

• pursuing fundamental dishonesty findings after discontinuance
• relying on surveillance and expert evidence
• advancing dishonesty cases based on symptom exaggeration, not just fabrication
• running fundamental dishonesty arguments in mixed injury claims
• focusing on a single dishonest core issue

These decisions fit with a clear trend in the courts: judges are increasingly willing to take a tough, consistent approach to closely examining high-value injury claims like NFCI cases and to challenge exaggeration where it appears .

Victoria Jackson and Laura Topping are Legal Directors in Clyde & Co who managed these claims. Andrew Ward from Exchange Chambers was instructed on both.