Karapetianas v Kent and Sussex Loft Conversions Ltd

Video surveillance may provide compelling evidence of a claimant’s functional capacity. Where repeated surveillance over a representative period contradicts reported disability, the court may accept it as evidence of the claimant’s actual level of functioning. A claimant’s later deterioration must be causally established; unexplained symptoms are not automatically attributable to the original injury. A discrepancy in evidence does not necessarily amount to dishonesty or justify striking out the claim. The power to strike out after trial for abuse of process is reserved for the very rare case in which the claimant has forfeited the right to have the claim determined on its merits.

The claimant suffered a serious pelvic fracture in a workplace accident when flooring collapsed during a loft conversion. Liability for the accident was established, but the parties disputed the extent and duration of the resulting disability.

Medical evidence before and after 2014 described severe and continuing disability. Surveillance footage from December 2013 to August 2014 showed the claimant walking, driving, shopping and undertaking ordinary activities with near-normal functionality. The central issues were whether the footage represented his actual recovery, whether his later condition was caused by the accident, and whether the evidential discrepancy justified striking out the claim for abuse of process.

1. The claimant had substantially recovered from the accident by the end of May 2014. The surveillance footage, taken on 17 occasions over a substantial period, was accepted as representative of his level of functionality. The explanations that only good days had been filmed or that painkillers had masked his symptoms were rejected.
2. The claimant’s present condition was not shown to be causally connected with the accident. The medical evidence did not explain the marked recovery shown by the footage followed by the later deterioration. A possible psychological explanation had been suggested, but no psychological evidence established the necessary causal link.
3. The court did not find that the claimant had consciously fabricated or dishonestly exaggerated his evidence. His distress appeared genuine, and a psychological explanation remained possible. The defendant was therefore liable for the accident and its consequences only up to the point of substantial recovery.
4. Following Summers v Fairclough Homes [2012] 1 WLR 2004, striking out after trial was an exceptional remedy. This was not a case in which the claimant had forfeited the right to have his claim determined on its merits. The application to strike out was refused.
5. Damages were awarded for the pelvic injury, loss of earnings, care, future care needs, travel and miscellaneous expenses. The total award before interest was £150,919.17.