A woman who became pregnant despite having undergone a sterilisation procedure has secured damages...
A motorcyclist who was seriously injured when a car pulled out in front of him has had his claim dismissed after the High Court found it to be fundamentally dishonest.
The accident happened in 2018, when the man was 26 years old. He was riding his motorbike when a car drove out of a minor road into his path, causing him to collide with it. He suffered serious injuries to both arms and legs. He received treatment in hospital and subsequently underwent a number of further surgeries.
After proceedings were brought, the driver of the car admitted liability for the accident. The man received interim damages of £50,000 in 2019 and a further £100,000 in 2020.
The man claimed that he could only walk a maximum of 200 metres without a stick and had not resumed sporting activities he had enjoyed before the accident. He sought compensation of nearly £6.5 million, including 30 hours of care per week, a specially adapted vehicle, single-storey accommodation, and business-class flights to enable him to travel abroad.
The car driver alleged that the claim was fundamentally dishonest and should be dismissed under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Footage was obtained showing the man walking around 900 metres unaided, visiting a climbing centre and driving. Social media posts suggested that he had participated in BASE jumping, and he had been certified by his GP as fit to take part in a skydive. He had also travelled abroad on budget flights.
The Court concluded that the man knew his mobility was not nearly as badly affected as he had claimed, and that he had given explanations for discrepancies in his evidence that he knew to be untrue. The Court assessed the actual value of his claim at just over £1.2 million and considered it highly likely that a settlement would have been reached if he had been honest.
Dismissing his claim, the Court was not persuaded that denying him compensation would cause him substantial injustice. While his financial position would be 'much less favourable, even parlous', his basic needs would be met by state provision. He was also ordered to repay the interim payments.