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

Between 16 June 2022 and 28 June 2024, the Defendant instructed a surveillance company, The Surveillance Group (“TSG”) to carry out covert surveillance on the Claimant. TSG deployed a number of covert surveillance operatives over several dates over the above period, and they obtained such surveillance footage. The Claimant raises several complaints about the obtaining and processing of the surveillance footage and alleges that TSG, or their employees or agents, have dishonestly manipulated the evidence in order to paint the Claimant in a negative light or to remove evidence that is helpful to the Claimant’s case. The criticisms fall into four main categories, in summary:

The Claimant’s position is that TSG has engaged in a “deliberate and cynical” manipulation of the surveillance evidence to paint the Claimant as less disabled than she is and/or to bolster the Defendant’s allegations of exaggeration. The Claimant argues that the evidence is so tainted that the Court should be sceptical that the Defendant/TSG has disclosed all surveillance evidence obtained and the evidence is so manifestly unfair, it should be excluded from consideration. The Defendant accepts that there have been some failings on the part of TSG but that these were because of human error and some of the Claimant’s criticisms relate to the obtaining of surveillance evidence more widely. In any event, the Defendant says, there is no prejudice to the Claimant or, if there is, it is far outweighed by the probative nature of such evidence as to the Claimant’s level of disability. The Claimant does not accept the explanations provided by the TSG employees, which she argues “do not withstand scrutiny and further [show a] lack of transparency and dishonesty on the part of the [TSG] operatives” and that “there is overwhelming evidence to prove that [TSG] has manipulated the evidence so as to be more favourable to the Defendant’s case”. I will return to the detail of those submissions later in this judgment.

This issue was first raised before the Court at a case management conference listed on 2 May 2025. I gave a preliminary ruling at that stage and set directions for this hearing, including the service of witness evidence from TSG, if so advised, to respond to the many concerns raised on behalf of the Claimant.

The Court received a significant volume of material for this application, with the main bundle and authorities bundle totalling circa 2500 pages. The parties’ skeleton arguments and appendices totalled 72 pages, 49 of those from the Claimant. I have also considered approximately one hour of sample surveillance footage supplied by the parties in support of their respective submissions. I sat late to finish hearing the parties’ submissions on the central applications, which lasted for a whole day. It goes without saying that I have considered each of the issues raised with considerable care, but I will focus on the core issues raised to try to keep this judgment as concise as possible.