High Court Sends A Warning to Dishonest Claimants!

The High Court recently illustrated how serious of a crime dishonesty is, after dismissing a claim in which an injured motorcyclist had lied to pursue their insurer for £6.6 million in compensation, with a costs order of £150,000 being ordered against him.

Matthew Shaw had suffered a motorcycle accident in Stockport in 2018. He suffered multiple fractures in his arms and legs and spent over a month in hospital, whilst undergoing 23 surgical procedures.

He had issued a claim in July 2019 seeking £6.5 million plus costs of future aid and equipment from Insurers, Hastings Direct.

Shaw had claimed that he could only walk up to 200 metres without using a stick and he required a mobility scooter for longer trips. He also claimed he had difficulty standing for more than 10 minutes and needed two handrails to climb the stairs.

In September 2020, Shaw made an interim payment request by letter, seeking £1.5m to fund continued rehabilitation, single-storey accommodation in an affluent area and a Land Rover Discovery or Mercedes GLE.

However, Hastings Direct had obtained surveillance footage which exposed Shaw walking 900 metres without a stick, prompting their legal representatives to issue a warning email, asking him to re-consider his claim or withdraw his application for interim payment.

Shaw decided to double down and continue with the application, subsequently being filmed walking without any aid, shopping using a mountain bike and driving an SUV. Further investigations had discovered he was also cleared fit for base-jumping and a skydive in Italy!

Due to his dishonesty, the High Court had found Shaw to be fundamentally dishonest and ordered him to repay interim payments amounting to £150,000, despite having a legitimate case worth £1.2million.

Judge Sephton KC said that Shaw’s claim probably would have settled if he was honest. Instead, Shaw would now have to rely on state support for his ongoing treatment and accepted that the dismissal of his claim would leave him in a ‘parlous’ financial position, but that this decision ‘would not inflict substantial injustice’.