Grant Greening-Steer v Derek Ainge

Under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, a personal injury claim must be dismissed where the claimant is fundamentally dishonest in relation to the primary or a related claim, unless dismissal would cause substantial injustice. The court must first determine the claimant’s actual knowledge or belief and then apply the objective standards of ordinary decent people. Dishonesty is fundamental where it is central to the claim, materially inflates damages, or substantially affects the litigation. Interim payments and the claimant’s resulting financial consequences may be relevant to substantial injustice, but ordinarily carry little weight where the claimant has deliberately created the circumstances relied upon.

The claimant brought a personal injury claim arising from a road traffic accident for serious brain, spinal, shoulder and hip injuries. Liability was admitted, but the extent of injury, consequential disability, damages and an allegation of fundamental dishonesty were contested.

After reviewing medical evidence, surveillance footage and the claimant’s evidence, the court assessed his genuine injuries and honest damages. The central issues were whether his presentation and reporting were fundamentally dishonest and, if so, whether dismissal would cause substantial injustice under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

1. Fundamental dishonesty. The court found that the claimant had substantially exaggerated his physical and cognitive disabilities, mobility restrictions, pain, driving limitations, work incapacity and care needs. The dishonesty was deliberate, extensive and sustained, and accounted for approximately 70–80 per cent of the claimed losses. It was therefore fundamental to the claim.
2. Applicable test. Applying Ivey v Genting [2017] UKSC 67, the court first determined what the claimant actually knew or believed about his capabilities. It then assessed whether his conduct was dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people.
3. Substantial injustice. The court considered the factors identified in Williams Henry v Associated British Ports [2024] EWHC 806, including the scale and breadth of the dishonesty, the additional work and expense caused to the defendant, the difference between dishonest and honest damages, the claimant’s genuine residual disability, costs consequences and the likely effect of repaying interim payments. The financial consequences of repayment, including possible disposal of assets, would not generally amount to substantial injustice in such circumstances.
4. The claimant’s honest damages were assessed at £378,420. The court nevertheless dismissed the claim under section 57 because the claimant was fundamentally dishonest and dismissal would not cause substantial injustice. The amount of honest damages was recorded for costs purposes.