Michael Nana Mantey v Ministry of Defence

For the purposes of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 44.16(1), a claim may be fundamentally dishonest even if it was genuine when commenced and the dishonesty arose later. The relevant question is whether the dishonesty goes to the root of the whole claim or a substantial part of it, rather than merely to an incidental or collateral matter. Deliberate exaggeration of genuine symptoms can satisfy that test. After discontinuance, the assessment is made by reference to the position immediately before discontinuance. A precise valuation of the valid underlying claim is not always necessary.

The claimant, a former soldier, brought a claim for damages alleging that he had suffered a non-freezing cold injury through the defendant’s negligence and breach of statutory duty. He later discontinued the claim after surveillance evidence was disclosed. The defendant applied for a determination that the claim was fundamentally dishonest under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 44.16(1), notwithstanding the discontinuance.

The central issues were whether the claimant had deliberately presented an exaggerated account of his symptoms, whether that conduct was dishonest, and whether it substantially affected the claim so as to make it fundamentally dishonest.

1. Application granted. The court determined, on the balance of probabilities, that the discontinued claim was fundamentally dishonest for the purposes of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 44.16(1).
2. The court applied the approach approved in Howlett v Davies: first determine whether the claimant was dishonest, applying the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd; then determine whether the dishonesty was fundamental, by asking whether it went to the root of the whole claim or a substantial part rather than an incidental or collateral matter.
3. The surveillance footage showed a marked contrast between the claimant’s unaided and generally normal walking before and after the medical examination and his use of a crutch, limp and reported inability to walk more than 50 yards at the examination. The medical explanations advanced for the contrast were rejected. The claimant had deliberately given false accounts of his symptoms and functionality to the experts, with a view to enhancing the value of the claim.
4. Following Muyepa v Ministry of Defence and Iddon v Warner, the court considered when the dishonesty began, whether it tainted the whole claim or only a divisible element, and the relationship between the value of the valid and dishonestly inflated claims. Those approaches were aids to analysis, not mandatory checklists. In a claim under Part 44.16(1), the valid underlying claim need not be valued with the precision required under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
5. The dishonesty concerned the extent and continuing effect of the alleged injury. It substantially affected the presentation and value of the claim, including the claims for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and future financial loss. It therefore went to the heart of the claim.

First instance decision. The judgment records no appeal or earlier judicial determination of the merits.