King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KB-2023-000278 - [2025] EWHC 2536 (KB)

Fecha: 09-Oct-2025

His Honour Judge Grimshaw

His Honour Judge Grimshaw:

The background to this case can be stated relatively briefly. On 11 February 2020, the Claimant was involved in a road traffic accident where she was knocked from her motorcycle and sustained multiple traumatic injuries. Liability is not in issue. The Defendant accepts that the Claimant sustained some injury as a result of the road traffic accident but has concern that the extent of the Claimant’s injuries has been exaggerated.

The Claimant alleges that she has suffered several injuries, including:

Head injury with loss of consciousness, with a possible mild traumatic brain injury.

ii)

Multiple fractures of the left thumb requiring surgical pinning/wiring.

iii)

Partial rupture of the ligament attaching the right thumb to the wrist.

iv)

Injury to the right arm/elbow, possibly a fracture.

Total tear of the left posterior cruciate ligament requiring reconstructive surgery.

vi)

Dislocation of the left knee with suspected medial meniscus tear.

vii)

Left ankle injury and nerve damage.

viii)

Soft tissue injuries to the pelvis and neck.

ix)

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and chronic adjustment disorder with depressive features.

Somatic Symptom Disorder.

xi)

Chronic Widespread Pain.

xii)

Functional Neurological Disorder.

xiii)

The need to undergo thirteen surgical procedures to date, with further surgery contemplated for the future.

This judgment will address two (of several) applications that have been made:

The Defendant’s application to rely upon covertly obtained surveillance footage of the Claimant. The central issue before the Court in this application is how the surveillance evidence has been obtained, processed and disclosed and whether there are such significant flaws in the processes adopted by the Defendant’s agents that the Court should refuse permission for the Defendant to rely on such evidence.

ii)

The Claimant’s application for specific disclosure (in reality, inspection) of draft report prepared by the neuropsychologist expert instructed by the Defendant, Dr Mullin.

Other applications include the Defendant’s application to amend its Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty on the part of the Claimant. I will return to the issue of the (two) draft Amended Defences in due course. The Claimant has also made further applications regarding disclosure, some of which I dealt with during the hearing on 9 September, and I left the parties to discuss the other disclosure matters, having made some observations during the hearing; I understand that this further application may now have been resolved.