A county court has dismissed a lawyer’s legal claim following a car accident after concluding that she had been ‘fundamentally dishonest’ about her symptoms.
Claire Thomas, 39, of Merthyr Tydfil, issued proceedings in 2019, three years after her car, which was stationary in traffic, was hit by another vehicle. The claimant, described as a non-practising lawyer, said she suffered injuries including soft tissue damage to her neck, head, shoulders and back, as well as psychological consequences. The basis of her claim was ongoing symptoms that affected her mobility, pain and all aspects of daily living.
Insurance company LV=, whose policyholder’s vehicle struck Thomas’s car, was suspicious of Thomas’s symptoms and asked City firm Clyde & Co to investigate.
In a press release issued today about the county court’s judgment, Clyde & Co said that following a surveillance operation and review of her social media, the firm found that, among other activities, Thomas attended a concert by singer P!nk, volunteered to help at the Leeds Music Festival and undertook a strenuous Four Waterfalls Walk in the Brecon Beacons National Park.
In a judgment handed down on 21 March, His Honour Judge Harrison at Cardiff County Court said he was driven to the conclusion that the insurer ‘established on the balance of probability that the claimant has not presented a truthful account of her symptoms, to the medical experts in this case and/or to those to whom she reported the extent of the same following the accident’.
Harrison was satisfied ‘that in so doing the claimant’s untruthfulness went to the heart of the claim, and as such I must conclude that she has been fundamentally dishonest. The law requires me therefore to dismiss her claim’.
The law also required the judge to value parts of the claim that Thomas established to be honest. The total assessment amounted to £9,918.
The judgment states that Thomas trained as a lawyer and had also worked as a judge’s and barrister’s clerk.
Harrison added: ‘This is a decision that I reach with a heavy heart. The fall for the claimant is significant. Whilst it is not necessary for me to conclude whether she has a factitious disorder or whether she is a frank malingerer, I strongly suspect it is the former. To that end, and whilst it is not a defence to the allegation made, the contents of this judgment and the consequences need to be dealt with by the claimant’s representatives with the claimant with care, support and sensitivity.’
Clyde & Co said today that LV= will be seeking to recover its costs from Thomas. Senior associate Vanessa Brooks said: ‘There was never any doubt that Ms Thomas was not at fault in the accident itself but the sheer scale of her exaggerations has led to her claim being dismissed. As tempting as it can seem, exaggerating medical symptoms in order to claim compensation can lead to the entire claim being judged as fraudulent.’
Thomas was represented by Harding Evans Solicitors. The firm declined to comment.
