In the matter of Muhammad Ayaz v Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Limited 2026, the defendant (D) made a successful application for summary judgment in a personal injury claim following disclosure of surveillance evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the claimant (C) has been fundamentally dishonest, saving £1m.
Facts
The claim arose out of a road traffic accident in February 2020. In 2022, C, in a wheelchair, saw one medical expert and stated he was barely able to stand or walk for a few minutes, relied on family for care provision, had not worked since the accident, was unable to dress himself and required assistance with bathing, washing and personal hygiene. In 2023, again, using a wheelchair, he saw another expert and claimed he was unable to stand unaided, was unable to use both hands and was in constant pain. C also signed a schedule of loss totalling £661,000 and claimed he had been unable to work since the accident and required care.
C subsequently saw a third expert, Dr Edwards, again in a wheelchair, stating he was unable to walk for more than just one or two steps. He required support in all aspects of activities of daily living. C's wife reported that she hadn’t worked since the accident because she is his full-time carer.
Evidence
Days 1, 2 and 3 surveillance:
C was seen walking outside his house without his wheelchair driving a Range Rover to go shopping. He carried a shopping basket and bent and crouched whilst putting air into his tyres. He manoeuvred various cars outside his house and drove to B&Q, where he was seen carrying a large piece of MDF. C was seen driving away from his house and returning on foot.
Days 4 and 5 surveillance:
C was seen walking outside his house and carrying boxes. He was seen driving to his medical appointment. He exited the car and immediately entered the wheelchair. After the appointment, he was helped to transfer into the car. Some distance away from the consulting rooms, C was seen exiting the vehicle and walking and shopping.
When attending the medical appointment, C stated that he could not get out of his wheelchair and that he spent all his time in bed. The expert noted there was evidence of exaggeration or malingering.
Day 6 surveillance:
C was seen walking around his house without his wheelchair. He loaded the wheelchair into the car. He drove to another expert's appointment and on arrival, was helped into the wheelchair and after the appointment was helped into the car. When he returned home, he was seen walking unaided.
Day 7 surveillance:
C was seen walking around his house, bending and loading the wheelchair into the car. He drove away from the house, but was no longer driving when he arrived at Dr Edwards' consulting rooms.
C stated to the medical expert that he could not hold anything in his right hand and that the use of his left hand caused pain. He stated that he could not walk for more than one or two steps, was unable to drive, and could not stand or bend over.
Application for summary judgment
The surveillance evidence was disclosed, which prompted C's solicitors to remove themselves from the court record. D was given permission to rely on an amended defence to plead fundamental dishonesty, the surveillance evidence and expert evidence commenting on the footage.
Appropriate references to case law pertaining to s.57 were contained within the skeleton arguments along with a recital of the principles to be applied to applications for summary judgment in EasyAir v Opal Telecom [2009] EWHC (Ch) at para 15.
For all the reasons mentioned above, the court was asked to enter summary judgment given that the evidence was so compelling that there was no real prospect of C resisting such a finding even if the matter had proceeded to trial.
The judge commented that this is an unusual application, though unsurprisingly, there are authorities stating that there is no bar to granting such an application. He went on to say that very considerable caution is required and that subject to being satisfied that CPR 24.2 is met, there is no impediment to the court granting the application where dishonesty is alleged. In the judge's view, C had according to the usual meaning of the term, acted dishonestly and had substantially affected the presentation of the case.
The court granted the application, made a finding of fundamental dishonesty and made an interim costs order against C in the sum of £150,000.
Discussion
There are a number of ways to secure a finding of fundamental dishonesty and summary judgment is one means of securing an early finding where the evidence is sufficiently clear-cut. With court backlogs and adjourned trials ongoing with no signs of it abating, this is a cost and time-efficient way of securing the right outcome.
Claire Laver, Head of Fraud, CSG, said, "Collaboration between complex injury and fraud lawyers to develop an appropriate strategy to successfully defend this claim has borne out in an early successful decision saving Intact Insurance (formerly Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Limited) £1m. The lengths that this claimant, his wife and adult children went to in their attempt to defraud Intact Insurance were audacious and well thought out but Intact Insurance's willingness to secure surveillance evidence thwarted those attempts with significant financial consequences for the claimant."
