A claimant who recovered only a fraction of the damages he originally sought has avoided a finding of fundamental dishonesty after the High Court upheld a county court decision in AXA Insurance PLC v Maher.
David Maher had initially claimed around £50,000 following a road traffic accident in 2018 but was ultimately awarded £3,609. The trial judge accepted that he suffered pain in his left hand, arm, shoulder, and neck for several months after the accident. However, the court found that neck and shoulder symptoms which emerged later in 2018 were not caused by the collision.
AXA argued that Maher had been fundamentally dishonest when he told a medical expert that his later symptoms were linked to the accident. The insurer contended that he had effectively created a false account to explain injuries that were unrelated to the incident.
The county court rejected that argument, finding that Maher genuinely believed his symptoms stemmed from the accident. His continued assertion of that belief, even if ultimately mistaken, did not amount to dishonesty under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
On appeal, AXA argued that the trial judge had accepted Maher’s evidence without sufficient scrutiny and had failed to properly reconcile his oral evidence with the documentary record. Mr Justice Mansfield disagreed, concluding that the judge had appropriately tested the claimant’s evidence and was entitled to find him a truthful witness.
In dismissing the appeal, Mansfield J noted that recalling the precise timing and location of pain more than a year after an accident is not always straightforward. The court was therefore entitled to conclude that Maher subjectively believed the account he gave, even though parts of it were later found to be inaccurate.
The decision serves as a reminder that an unsuccessful or exaggerated claim will not automatically lead to a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The key question remains whether the claimant knowingly misled the court, rather than whether their recollection ultimately proved to be wrong.
See full judgment here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2026/1365.html
If you would like to speak to us or obtain further information, then please call 0870 766 9997, or email info@boxlegal.co.uk.
