QB-2018-004997 - [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)

She had on multiple occasions prior to the disclosure of the video surveillance maintained that she was effectively unable to use her left arm and that that compromised her ability to work and gave rise to a need for assistance with personal care and domestic tasks. Her account of her disability was so inconsistent with what could be seen that she must have been dishonest each time she gave it.

The lack of muscle wasting noted by the clinicians was a further reason why her account should not be accepted.

The Claimant’s explanation for her ability to assist with the horses on 12^th March 2022, that she was assisted by painkillers and her spinal cord stimulator is not credible, given her accounts prior to that that they did not afford her any relief

That Claimant had not explained the fact that in her witness statement and in her 2022 schedule she claimed that because the accident had rendered her unable to use a manual vehicle, she had purchased an automatic vehicle for £9,000, something she now accepts did not happen.

The Defendant invited me to find that the evidence showed that the Claimant either legally owned or had responsibility for horses

The Defendant invited me to accept that the Claimant was in fact working effectively full-time hours for her employer as she told the investigator from Peninsular in May 2022. Her accounts that she was limited to part-time hours were false.

The Defendant relied on the Claimant’s failure to make concessions in her oral evidence as showing that she persisted in her dishonesty

Finally the Defendant invited me to find that the Claimant had taken a series of steps to conceal the fact that she was driving a manual vehicle at the time she was subject to surveillance. She was able to drive that manual vehicle after the accident, this being relevant because it showed that the disability in her left arm was not at the level she claimed. When confronted with the request in July 2022 for details concerning her vehicle, she took steps to find someone to say that her car had been converted. She disposed of her manual car in December 2022 and bought an automatic one.

She has been consistent in the reporting of her disability to those who have examined her and produced Part 35 reports.

Her classification for the purposes of athletics was done by individuals experienced in that process, is consistent with her Part 35 evidence and I should be slow to draw adverse conclusions from the use of particular words such as “paralysis” or “brachial plexus injury”.

There is an early reference to vehicle adaptations in a letter dated 24 September 2016 the timing of which (before she had left the army) corroborates her case that she had a difficulty with driving.

Notwithstanding the contents of her witness statement and schedule, the Claimant has disclosed the October 2018 quotation for adaptations and consistently told medical experts that she had had that work done. She first gave Mr Lourie that information in late 2018. The Defendant’s case that, instead, she sold a manual car and bought an adapted car, is not the only explanation for events. The other car could have been used as a donor vehicle or simply swapped. In any event the Claimant’s evidence reflects her honest belief as to what occurred. The Claimant invited me to find that there was insufficient evidence for this issue to be resolved. An indicator of the Claimant’s good faith in this regard is the fact that she returned to her home in Lincoln during the trial and obtained further documents which contained the information about the two different vehicle identification numbers.

The 2020 surveillance is supportive of the Claimant’s case on disability. She can be seen to favour her right arm.

The activity on 12^th March 2022 is not representative of the Claimant’s general level of activity and, in any event, too much has been made of it. What can be seen are short periods of use of the arm. The Claimant’s use of painkillers and the spinal cord stimulator assisted her and I should bear in mind the evidence of Professor Lalkhen that individuals with chronic pain can perform tasks on a one off basis if they are sufficiently incentivised.

The evidence of Shireen Timmis and the Claimant’s grandmother, Maureen O’Connell is supportive of her case.

The surveillance evidence on 13^th March 2022 is short.

The video evidence only covers two days and is an insufficient foundation on which to base a conclusion that the Claimant has been dishonest.

The Claimant sought treatment including invasive treatment during the period when she is alleged to have been dishonest about her condition.

The absence of muscle wasting noted by clinicians can be explained by the Claimant’s continued activity and attempts at rehabilitation.

The Claimant is someone for whom Captain Stone had a very high regard and her service in the regular army was categorised as exemplary.