Brian Muyepa v Ministry of Defence

Under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, a personal injury claim must be dismissed where the claimant is entitled to damages but has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the primary or a related claim, unless dismissal would cause substantial injustice. Fundamental dishonesty requires dishonesty which substantially affects the presentation of liability or quantum. Loss of honest damages alone is not substantial injustice. Persistent and significant exaggeration may taint the whole claim where the diagnosis and extent of injury depend substantially on the claimant’s subjective account. The court must nevertheless record the damages it would have awarded. Expert evidence must remain independent, objective, complete and responsive to material changes in opinion.

The claimant, a former soldier, claimed damages for a non-freezing cold injury allegedly sustained during a military promotion course. He alleged breach of statutory and common-law duties, continuing physical and psychiatric disability, loss of military earnings and substantial care needs.

The defendant accepted that a genuine injury would involve breach of duty, but alleged that the claimant had engineered or dishonestly exaggerated the injury and had presented a fundamentally dishonest claim. The court considered breach, causation, the extent of the genuine injury, quantum and the application of section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

1. Disposition. The claimant had suffered a genuine but minor non-freezing cold injury and had established breach of duty, albeit narrowly. His claim was nevertheless dismissed under section 57(2) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The court recorded that, absent dismissal, damages would have been £97,595.33.
2. Dishonesty. Applying the approach in Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Limited (t/a Crockfords Club) [2018] AC 391, the court determined the claimant’s actual state of knowledge and belief and then applied the objective standards of ordinary decent people. The claimant had deliberately and significantly exaggerated his symptoms from March or April 2017 for financial gain. He had presented himself as unable to walk normally, reliant on a stick and in need of extensive care, despite objective recordings showing normal walking, driving, shopping and dancing. The court also found that he had feigned a fall and that he and his wife had misled care experts.
3. Fundamental character. Applying London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (In Liquidation) v Haydn Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB), the dishonesty substantially affected the presentation and valuation of the claim. It began before proceedings and tainted the whole claim because the diagnosis and extent of the alleged disability depended heavily on the claimant’s account. The loss of an honest damages award did not itself constitute substantial injustice.
4. Evidence and assessment. A lie by a witness does not automatically make every part of that witness’s evidence unreliable. The court assessed motive, context, consistency, corroboration and objective evidence. Experts owed an overriding duty to the court under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and had to provide independent, unbiased and complete opinions. The court rejected extensive care and equipment claims as unreasonable or disproportionate, and used lump-sum assessments for employment losses where precise calculation was impossible.
5. Final order. The primary claim was dismissed for fundamental dishonesty. Counsel were directed to draw the appropriate order.