NATASHA PALMER v MR SEFERIF MANTAS

Under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, fundamental dishonesty requires proof, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant acted dishonestly and that the dishonesty substantially affected the presentation of the primary or related claim. The court must dismiss the primary claim unless dismissal would cause substantial injustice, while recording the damages that would otherwise have been awarded.

A claimant is not fundamentally dishonest merely because accounts differ, symptoms fluctuate, or information was not volunteered during expert assessments. Expert evidence must remain objective and balanced. Genuine post-traumatic amnesia, even if momentary, may support a diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury. Future loss of earnings may properly be assessed by the multiplier-and-multiplicand method where disability materially affects the claimant’s employment prospects.

The claim arose from a road traffic collision in which the first defendant drove into the rear of the claimant’s stationary vehicle. Liability was admitted, and the trial concerned causation, quantum and the second defendant’s allegation that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest.

The claimant alleged mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, migraine, psychiatric injury and continuing impairment affecting work and daily life. The second defendant disputed causation, the extent of disability and the claimed losses. The central issues were whether fundamental dishonesty had been proved, what injuries were caused by the collision, and how damages should be assessed.

1. Fundamental dishonesty. The second defendant failed to establish fundamental dishonesty. Applying section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, the court adopted the two-stage approach in Ivey v Genting Casinos Limited T/A Crockfords Club [2016] UKSC 67 and London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Para Olympic Games (in liquidation) v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51: proof of dishonesty, followed by proof that it was fundamental because it substantially affected the presentation of the claim. The claimant’s inconsistencies, omissions, social-media posts and varying accounts were explained by memory difficulties, fluctuating symptoms, personality and the context in which questions were asked. They did not establish deliberate dishonesty.
2. The burden lay on the party alleging dishonesty. The allegation required appropriately cogent evidence, although the civil standard remained the balance of probabilities: Robins v National Trust [1927] AC 515; Re H [1996] AC 563. A claimant was not required to volunteer every aspect of functioning during medico-legal assessments when those matters had not been asked about.
3. Expert evidence. The court gave reduced weight to evidence affected by imbalance or departure from the expert’s duty. Experts must provide objective and unbiased assistance after considering material that may detract from the instructed party’s case, as explained in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392. The court preferred the evidence of Dr Murphy to that of Dr Torrens, and Dr Munglani to that of Dr Miller.
4. Injury and causation. The claimant suffered a mild traumatic brain injury under criterion B2 of the Mayo classification. Her short period of post-traumatic amnesia was sufficient. The court accepted that the collision caused a neuro-metabolic cascade, chronic pain, migrainous headaches, psychiatric injury and persistent functional problems. The reasoning in Long v Elegant Resorts Limited [2021] EWHC 1330 and the approach in Stansfield v BBC [2021] EWHC 2638 were applied.
5. Future earnings. The claimant was disabled within the applicable definition and her disability materially affected her ability to carry out day-to-day work. The court followed the approach in Inglis v Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 1153 and used the conventional multiplier-and-multiplicand method, with an adjusted reduction factor. The cases of Billett v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 772 and Murphy v Ministry of Defence [2016] EWHC 03 (QB) were distinguished because the disabilities there had little practical effect on continuing employment.
6. The claim was not dismissed under section 57. The total award was £1,679,406.