Claims inflation, exaggeration and layering are ongoing challenges in the insurance industry. We are experiencing a higher frequency of exaggerated claims, and the debate about whether judges are prepared to use the tools available to them in such claims receives mixed opinions, but in this case, HHJ Duddridge has provided a clear and considered judgment when making his finding that the claimant was fundamentally dishonest.
Brief facts
Perry Huckfield, the claimant, alleged that whilst working as a cleaner at a wholesale market managed by The City of London Corporation, the defendant, as a cleaner he slipped on ice causing him to fall and sustain an injury to his lower back, resulting in disabilities from which he had not recovered. He attempted to return to work for The City of London Corporation, but alleged that he was unable to manage and he was eventually retired on health grounds.
He originally pleaded that the claim was valued in between £1,000 and £35,000 but later submitted an increased schedule of loss for £300,000, including £141,000 for future loss of earnings, £30,000 for past care and assistance, £125,750 for future care and assistance and £12,000 to construct a ground floor extension with a shower room because he was unable to climb the stairs in his home.
Evidence
Surveillance undertaken by Robertson & Co showed Mr Huckfield carrying out activities which were inconsistent with the level of disability described in his schedule of loss, witness statement and to experts when they examined him. Fundamental dishonesty was pleaded and Adam Taylor of Crown Office Chambers represented the defendant.
Outcome
After the surveillance evidence was disclosed, Mr Huckfield filed a notice of discontinuance and his solicitors subsequently removed themselves from the court record. We applied to have the issue of fundamental dishonesty determined for the purposes of CPR 44.16 as permitted by 44PD 12.4(c). HHJ Duddridge found Mr Huckfield to be fundamentally dishonest and that the defendant is entitled to enforce its costs to the fullest extent.
Discussion
Following the handing down of his reserved judgment in December 2025, HHJ Duddridge considered a variety of authorities with regard to the meaning of fundamental dishonesty and stated that a person's subjective state of mind is a matter of inference from the evidence as a whole, not just their own evidence about what they believed. He said that he agreed with the defendant's counsel's submission "that if a claimant is found to have been subjectively dishonest by deliberately misreporting their symptoms in order to increase their damages, that will be sufficient to establish dishonesty without needing to separately consider whether that conduct was objectively dishonest."
For context Mr Huckfield alleged in a variety of court documents signed with a statement of truth that he needed to return his West Ham season ticket as could no longer walk from the tube station, that the injury led to facet joint injections, physio and paraesthesia in his foot, that he was very restricted and could not walk without a stick, that he was a candidate for joint denervation and surgical decompression and absence of treatment would likely lead to ongoing symptoms into the foreseeable future. Psychosocial factors were affecting levels of pain experienced and suffered from mild depression. He claimed that he required assistance from his wife in getting showered and dressed and could no longer assist with household chores, the gardening, decorating or DIY. He rarely drove the car and had to sleep downstairs.
When considering whether the claimant was fundamentally dishonest, HHJ Duddridge considered the position "immediately before the surveillance footage was disclosed…and the explanations he gave for the inconsistencies between what that footage shows and his forensic presentation".
The key question was whether he genuinely and honestly believed that his forensic presentation accurately reflected the level of his injuries, symptoms and disabilities or whether the inconsistencies were the product of deliberate and therefore dishonest exaggeration.
Having considered Mr Huckfield's oral evidence, the surveillance footage and the written and expert evidence, the judge commented that "the surveillance footage is so obviously inconsistent with Mr Huckfield's forensic presentation, and his explanations and evidence so weak, implausible and internally inconsistent, that, regrettably, I am unable to accept his evidence at face value, except where it is consistent with other objective and reliable evidence… there is a lack of objective evidence to support the high level of disability…presented."
The suggestion that there has been some psychological factor causing the symptoms is a common and often flawed argument raised in exaggeration cases and in this case the judge said that even if the "symptoms are explained by psychosocial causes, he knows what those symptom are and how they affect him. He should therefore be able to report them accurately."
He went on to say, "the question in this case is not whether Mr Huckfield sustained any injury. He might have suffered a reasonably serious injury for which significant damages might have been awarded if he had proved that the defendant was liable." Mr Taylor submitted that Mr Huckfield had exaggerated the extent of his symptoms and disability for forensic purposes, in multiple documents and to multiple experts in order to increase the potential value of his claim by adding his very substantial claims for care and assistance and future loss of earnings.
In conclusion HHJ said that the "inconsistency between Mr Huckfield's presentation and what the surveillance footage shows is so profound, and his explanations so unsatisfactory that it leads inexorably to the conclusion that he has grossly and deliberately exaggerated his symptoms and his disabilities in order to advance claims for higher awards of damages than he would otherwise be entitled to"…"if his exaggeration had not been revealed by the surveillance footage, he might have recovered not just thousands but tens and possibly even hundreds of thousands of pounds more than he was entitled to." In principal, there can be no serious argument that was not fundamental in the sense discussed in the authorities mentioned.
Quote
Claire Laver, Head of Fraud at CSG said, "We are delighted for The City of London Corporation whose determination to defend this exaggerated claim has led to a significant success. This case was won as a result of a combination of factors: the early fraud detection by non-fraud lawyers, a robust investigation and litigation strategy following transfer to our counter fraud team strong intelligence provided by our intelligence team and good quality surveillance evidence provided by Robertson & Co. The value of the exaggerated claim meant that the proportionality test was satisfied when taking the decision to carry out surveillance."
For more information or advice, please contact one of our experts in our Casualty Fraud Team.
