LAURENSON V COX & MOD – MR JUSTICE GILLAN FINDS THAT THE PLAINTIFF “GROSSLY EXAGGERATED” SYMPTOMS
The Plaintiff claimed that he had sustained serious personal injuries arising out of a road traffic accident in 2003 when he was involved in a head on collision with a vehicle driven by the 1st Defendant and owned by the 2nd Defendant. Liability was conceded however quantum was in dispute.
The Plaintiff alleged during the course of the hearing that he was still suffering from symptoms in his chest and neck as a result of the subject road traffic accident. He claimed he had been unable to work due to these ongoing physical injuries and had been unable to drive a vehicle due to the psychological upset suffered as a result of the accident. The Plaintiff also claimed for ongoing loss of earnings.
The written judgment was not available at the time of writing this article however reports have hinted that the Plaintiff’s alleged claim was worth in the region of £900,000.00.
The Defendant’s representatives had carried out surveillance on the Plaintiff which showed him jogging, unloading large lengthy items from a van and loading tiling blocks 3 ft by 2ft in 2007. Surveillance also revealed that the Plaintiff had been driving vehicles on occasions from 2005. These reports clearly indicated that the Plaintiff, at these times, was showing no ill effects of the subject injury.
Mr Justice Gillan found that the Plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms were “contrary to medical opinion.” He found that the Plaintiff had “deliberately exaggerated” his symptoms and this was “amply illustrated by surveillance reports carried out on him without his knowledge by witnesses on behalf of the Defendant.” Mr Justice Gillan found that the Plaintiff had provided an untrustworthy account of his injuries that “coursed through his entire evidence.”
Mr Justice Gillan accepted that the Plaintiff had sustained some chest and neck injuries as a result of the subject accident and awarded the Plaintiff general damages in the sum of £13,000.00. The Plaintiff was however severely penalised in terms of costs. The Plaintiff was refused High Court costs and the costs of numerous experts appointed on behalf of the Plaintiff were disallowed.